In view of your frequent criticisms of the exaggerated claims made for their products by a number of advertisers, I refer you to the inside hack cover of your March issue.

On this page a number of claims are made for Interior Silent Travel kits, at least three of which are surely false.

(1) Easier Starting. The insulation provided by the kit covers the bulkhead and underside ol the bonnet only. Damp air is as free to circulate in the engine compartment when thus insulated as when it is not. The only advantage of such insulation

is minimal is that heat losses from a warm engine garaged overnight may be reduced a few per cent.

(2) Safer. How can an inch-thick layer of felt add to body rigidity ? As far as protection goes, I suppose the insulated roof might prevent ones head going right

through in a severe accident. If! only had Ls to spend; I'd buy a seat-belt! 3) Reduces Rust.

Condensation does n■.tt form when cold air meets the warm car floor. The reverse is true! 'l'o prevent condensation forming on any surface it is necessary for the surface temperature to be allowed to assume air temperature as quickly as possible. Insulation can only retard this process!

Incidentally, the advertisers recommend the use of their kit in Iht, Coopers. At least, I infer this from their paragraph entitled "Quieter."

As I'm sure you're aware, have already provided substantial soundproofing in these models.

f4) More Comfortable.

Since most interior draughts stem from poorly fitting doors and windows I fail to see how these kits can " seal the draughts off."

Perhaps I should mention that I have no connection with car or accessory manufacturers, and that I did, in fact, fit an Interior Silent Travel kit to an Austin Se7en I owned. Interior noise was certainly reduced, and the bonnet was given a more solid sound when closed. By no stretch of imagination, however, could the car be described as " as quiet as any good production saloon costing up to about i,86o."

Waltham Cross. DENNIS J. A1.1.0M. * *