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).
Summarizing a customer dispute over an oil top-up charge and subsequent engine trouble due to a shortage of oil.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 114\3\ scan0114 | |
| Date | 9th February 1938 | |
| S/W...BY c. to Pk. c. to Ed.{J. L. Edwards} c. to Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/GWH.{George W. Hancock - Head Chateauroux} W/K Re B.128.GA...S. de Mier. With reference to Pk/8.2.38 and BY10/05.2.38, to sum up this position, I understand it to be as follows:- (1) When the car came into K.{Mr Kilner} for a minor fault it was found that there was only a quart of oil in the sump. (2) K.{Mr Kilner} filled it up and charged the owner. (3). The owner said in a recent letter that he objected to paying 18/6d for emptying his sump and re-filling because he had filled it up 84 miles before it came into K.{Mr Kilner} This was not mentioned by the driver to K.{Mr Kilner} when this shortage of oil was mentioned and no sign of oil leak was shown to account for the oil disappearing. We, therefore, can only assume that the customer was mistaken as to his having filled up the sump 84 miles back. The next episode was 600 miles later, when the main trouble occurred. The engine was sent to BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} for examination, who found ample evidence of the trouble being due to shortage of oil, and, in fact, from BY8/01.2.38 there appears to be sufficient evidence to confirm that there was a shortage of oil during the period of 600 miles running. If BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} and K.{Mr Kilner} agree this, we propose writing to Mr. de Mier accordingly. I thought it advisable to get this properly clear so that there is no misunderstanding, as there has been a little confusion which, if the above is correct, is now cleared up. | ||