From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Test report evaluating vehicle performance, engine noise, consumption, and handling.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 11\3\ 03-page118 | |
| Date | 26th May 1930 | |
| - 2 - EP{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer}12/H26.5.30. (3) PERFORMANCE. High Speed performance disappointing. Acceleration and pick-up very good, but performance appears to suddenly fall off, 75 m.p.h. being the maximum speed. I consider we should satisfy ourselves on the effect, if any, the new silencer scheme and special carburetter inlet has on this high engine speed performance. In making comparative tests with the standard Phantom II fitted with covered body, the latter had a distinct advantage at high speeds. Are we satisfied that the petrol supply to the engine is O.K. for this high speed condition? On two occasions during a 450 mile run, the engine suffered definitely from petrol starvation, and only by cleaning out the filter was the shortage overcome. I do not consider that this "porous pot" type of filter is in its present state satisfactory. (4) ENGINE NOISE. Distinctly poor for slow speed running. Valve mechanism very noisy, camshaft squawks and noisy oil pump. (5) CONSUMPTIONS. Oil and petrol rather excessive. The excessive oil consumption confirms GWH{George W. Hancock - Head Chateauroux}'s report on the latter part of the 9,000 miles running. The excessive petrol consumption was caused by leaky filter. The cork washer was found to be broken. This latter point may also be considered accounted for the petrol fumes which were objectionable inside the body. (6) SPRINGING. For high speed work the springing was good. The car held the road well and one felt, even on the worst roads, reasonably stable and comfortable when sitting in the back seats. I did not consider, however, that the riding for low speeds would satisfy the majority of our customers. It suffers from dithers and hard riding. (7) AXLE AND GEARS. The axle appeared to have a noisy period between 50 - 60 m.p.h. on the forward drive. The gears were good. The side shaft was rather noisy and below our usual standard. EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} | ||