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).
Luggage accommodation, grids, and boot space, with comparisons to competitors like Chrysler.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 114\4\ scan0236 | |
| Date | 23th February 1938 | |
| -4- It will be argued that where a luggage grid is provided, it is not necessary to have a great deal of accommodation in the boot. Personally, we never use the grid for anything except station work if we can possibly help it. Nevertheless, we believe the luggage platform, in addition to the boot, appeals very strongly to the British public, and, as it is not a standard fitting on American cars, is a point where we can score over them. It is difficult to believe that the average customer would not rather have additional space on the many occasions when the trunk rack is not in use, than dust protection for the bags in the boot on the rare occasions when he is carrying a trunk, i.e., an auxiliary door to keep dust out of the boot when the main door is open seems to be a questionable asset. Briefly, there seems to be no difficulty in getting adequate luggage accommodation on B.50, provided a plain swept back is not imperative. B.III can be made reasonable for a sports car. The Wraith and P.III appear to deserve further consideration. Since writing the above, we see the Chrysler (advertisement in the "Motor" of February 22nd issue) is alleged to have 30 cubic feet of luggage space. This we feel should satisfy almost anybody. Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} | ||