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).
Internal memorandum discussing the J.3 engine design, engine size, performance versus comfort, and material choices.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 181\M13\M13.2\ img065 | |
| Date | 13th June 1931 | |
| To E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} From Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}1/MJ.13.6.31. "JAPAN 111". 85770 Referring to our conversation yesterday on the telephone we quite favour the scheme of going forward with J.3 design of engine instead of producing J.1, because J.1 will mean practically all new pieces. The point which we think should be carefully considered is whether we should not increase the engine size. As we look at it, J.3 when announced, will be a complete new car. That is, new power unit, new gearbox with easy change hypoid rear axle, etc. From the customer's point of view, they would expect better performance. We consider it is very dangerous to look at power curves and to assume from them that we have already obtained a satisfactory increase in power. In the past we have had engines of car which have given substantially more HP., but when we have tried the car on the road we have hated it. We must keep in mind that the majority of our buyers are people who place comfort and silence first. That is the only reason why we can sell the present car against competitors who give a much better performance. If we are going to rely on obtaining our increased HP. with twin carburetters, increased compression ratio, it is definite that we shall have more fuss and noise. We are gradually getting into the position where the sporting car will have to have considerable modifications to the standard cars. At the present time we are making some customers delighted by fitting stiffer road springs, and adding Hartford shock absorbers, and other customers we can only satisfy by fitting lower rating springs with much less damping. In the same way, we think that the sports car eventually may have higher compression ratio and other features which would not be desirable on a standard car.. The position is altered, of course, if as you say the intention was to reduce the size of the big car and that is a matter of policy. Our own view is that the big car should remain a big car, because there are always a certain number of people who buy big cars. As regards the construction of J.3 engine, we should not advocate making this engine with Aluminium cylinders. The expansion effects for our tappet mechanism would make this impossible. Before we embark on any scheme of original cylinder | ||