An eye on the opposition

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Current page

117

Current page

118

Current page

119

Current page

120

Current page

121

Current page

122

Current page

123

Current page

124

Current page

125

Current page

126

Current page

127

Current page

128

Current page

129

Current page

130

Current page

131

Current page

132

Current page

133

Current page

134

Current page

135

Current page

136

Current page

137

Current page

138

Current page

139

Current page

140

Quite why Sir Henry Royce Wanted to sample an OHC Austro-Daimler in 1925 (Motor Sport, November) I do not know, as the twin-ohc ‘Goshawk’ engine had already been abandoned for a pushrod power unit for the production R-R Twenty. Yet there was even concern, when the A-D they had tried proved unexpectedly slow, as to whether or not it had been the sports version.

To try a Fiat Forty, that dignified car with enormous brake drums and a radiator not unlike that of a Rolls, which sold in 1925 for £.1175, was more understandable. The R-R New Phantom had just been announced, with a much larger engine, the chassis priced at £1850. Was the ‘Tipo 519 Fiat a competitor?

So in October 1925, E W (later Lord) Hives reported for Royce on a Fiat limousine. It weighed 2.15 tons empty. The pushrod 4766cc six-cylinder engine’s noisiest feature was from the carburettor intake, and a driver heard nothing obtrusive from the valve-gear. But, bonnet open, two bad tappet knocks were noted and generally the Fiat’s engine “was less silent than that of a Rolls.”

The rocker shaft had to be lubricated two or three times a day by depressing a pump on the dash and the valves oiled by can. It was difficult to get out of top gear due to strong selector springs and a badly-placed lever; the indirect gears were not so quiet as on an average R-R Phantom, and reverse was “definitely a bad gear.”

The multi-plate clutch was very smooth “and stopped quickly.” The side brake was “singularly inaccessible and quite ineffective.” At low speeds there was no servo braking assistance, much pressure being required, and lag was equally bad forwards or backwards. The servo was effective “but it was difficult to detect when you were pushing against the return spring or dosing the servo valve, giving a feeling of insecurity and uncertainty. Not much front braking, and a gear growl was heard even by backseat occupants as the servo oil-pump teeth came under load, but braking did not affect steering. The Studebaker’s brakes of similar design were better.”

Those in the back seats thought the rear axle “very good.” But acceleration from 10 to 20mph in top was bad, and the “carburettor wanted humouring all the time.” Hives imagined the car to be overcooled but no radiator thermometer was fitted, and Fiat’s driver had been refused a blanking plate. The Fiat 40 was “over-sprung and rides like a lorry.” London’s squares gave very noticeable shocks all round over worn setts. The Brockley hill test took 58sec against a Phantom’s 49sec, the latter’s engine being 2902cc larger. The Fiat’s engine was rougher than a Phantom’s throughout its range and a vibration came up at 45mph on third, and a slight one at 40 in top.

Apart from the steering’s freedom from road shock and the nice clutch, Rolls-Royce could not see that they were likely to learn anything from the Italian car in respect of engine silence, flexibility and efficiency, gearbox silence, suspension, braking or lightness of steering. I assume they decided not to buy one for further road testing and possible disassembly

Fiat fans can console themselves that this was a very restricted appraisal, the A-D and Fiat both being tried on one day, mostly in London. In Italy, had Fiat wanted to test a Rolls-Royce, I suspect they would have gone much further and much faster.

Related articles

Related products