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).
Engine options for the 'Bensport' model, comparing the J.1. engine with a supercharged Peregrine.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 3\4\ 04-page103 | |
| Date | 24th October 1932 | |
| 84553 E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} ) FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} ) R3/M24.10.32. C. to SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} MOR. BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} BENSPORT ENGINE. I quite agree (and nearly added to my last memo. on this subject) that failing a blower we must change the idea of the engine. I think HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}' suggestion of applying the J.1. engine to this chassis very good indeed, especially as it fits, and fills the space for the Peregrine plus the blower - i.e. just the right size. At the same time I understand that there will be a certain amount of pattern making work to be done such as changing the sump and altering the flywheel casing, as the present ones would be too near the ground. It will be remembered that when we made J.3 we were surprised with the lightness. I cannot remember now whether it was the engine only or the whole chassis that was 1 cwt. lighter, although larger. For this, and several other reasons which I have not the energy to mention just now, it would appear much better to convert the J.1. engine into a proper small edition of J.3. and Peregrine, of Birmidium construction like J.3., and fit it with cyl. liners so that a good many of the parts would be interchangeable with the proposed engine for 'Spec' which I understand now is to be the same bore. We think it would be a more satisfactory engine to build, partly because of separating the timing wheels from the crankshaft damper wheel, as well as making a considerable difference in the acceleration of the car due to the saving of weight. I hope this suggestion will be acted upon. Naturally it will be found that this particular car, as suggested, with the larger engine, will have much better accelerating power than the supercharged smaller engine. I believe this scheme finds favour with Mr. Bentley and several others of our staff, but it suffers the disadvantage of tax, and insurance, and it may lose on high top speed performance. It will gain on acceleration, silence, and probably smoothness, in fact it becomes a first class RR. sporting car, which may or may not altogether meet the commercial dept's views. If however we decide to go on with the supercharged Peregrine, we must first express disappointment at the poor progress we have made with blowers. As one understands the situation, the Powerplus blower is not sufficiently reliable for the registration of our cars to fit, and that the (1) | ||