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).
Comparative analysis of cooling system dimensions and vehicle performance against competitor cars.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 23\4\ Scan021 | |
| Date | 25th August 1930 | |
| -2- Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}T/W.25.8.30.Contd. were not the bonnet louvres the only means of escape for the air. The results indicate that we are well up in the dimensions of our cooling system compared with other cars. TOP WATER TANK VOLUME. We have very much less top water tank space per gallon of cooling water than the Pierce Arrow, Chrysler or Marmon. Actually the water carried per 100 cu.ins. top tank volume per car is :- 25 HP. R.R. - 2 gal. 40/50 R.R. - 1.94 gal. Chrysler - 1.28 gal. Pierce Arrow - 1.05 gal. We think that we might with advantage, extend our top tanks backward under the bonnet. PERFORMANCE. As we should expect, the Marmon and Pierce Arrow can excel the 40/50 in low speed acceleration due to their very low top gears but the high wear and tear and poor petrol consumption they thereby incur does not make them a very practical proposition. The pleasantest car was the Graham Paige. By means of a long stroke they manage to give 4730 c.c. for £30 tax against our 3670 c.c. for £26 tax i.e. 15½% difference in tax 34½% difference in displacement, and were it not for the fact that the chassis must be rather heavy the car would have a remarkable performance being only 121" wheel base. It is refreshing to get back to a high top gear with the consequent absence of fuss, and the 3rd. speed acceleration is of course remarkably good, 55 M.P.H. being | ||