Letters from Readers, May 1950

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

Rolls-Bentley Comparisons
 
Sir,
As a regular reader who appreciates the unbiased manner in which you write about motor cars, I would like to put the following question to you.
 
Everyone (except your journal) speaks of the great superiority in performance of the Mark VI Bentley over its pre-war counterpart. One has read of this difference on many occasions, and if one dares to enter one of those exclusive London showrooms where such cars are sold, it will be about the first utterance made.
 
Yet when I look at back numbers of the motor papers I find that the reverse is the case. Indeed, the early car would appear to out-perform its post-war descendant to quite a marked degree. Here, for instance, are some acceleration figures given for the 1936 4¼-litre and the 1947 Mark VI Bentley. Both, for the sake of fairness, are taken from the Autocar.
 
0-50 m.p.h. Mark VI 12.5 sec.
0-50 m.p.h. 1936 4¼-litre 10.3 sec.
0-60 m.p.h. Mark VI 17.5 sec.
0-60 m.p.h. 1936 4¼-litre 15.5 sec.
0-70 m.p.h. Mark VI 25.8 sec.
0-70 m.p.h. 1936 4¼-litre 21.1 sec.
 
It might be thought that some freak conditions mitigated in favour of the early car to refute all that has been said and written. I thought that this must be the case until I looked up road tests for the 1937, 1938 and 1939 cars. But here again it was the same story. In each case the pre-war car out-performanced the Mark VI. I cannot, unfortunately, give you a fair maximum speed comparison because the Autocar in respect of the Mark VI remains silent on this point. It does, however, give me a “best” figure over the ¼-mile of 94.74 m.p.h. for the 1936 job, while “The Motor Year Book” gives 92.9 m.p.h. for the Mark VI.
 
I suppose that some people might say that there is “nothing in” all these figures (although that is not my view, particularly when I compare the acceleration from 0-70 m.p.h.). Whatever is said, however, the fact remains that on Autocar evidence, the Mark VI does not outshine its ancestor.
 
I am, Yours, etc.,
Lyndhurst. Andrew Lloyd.
 
[The latest Autocar figures for the Mk. VI to 50, 60 And 70 m.p.h. are 13.9, 19.5 and 28.3 sec.—Ed.]
* * *
Another Gyro-Car
 
Sir,
Your contributor “Baladeur,” whose most interesting comments on the Wolseley gyro-car appeared in the March issue, may be interested to know that the Giesberger two-wheeled gyro-chassis was shown at the 1921 Paris Salon. It had a water-cooled, four-cylinder engine, three-speed gearbox and double shaft-drive. The gyroscope was in the rear wheel and the front wheel was flanked on each side by the radiator.
 
I am, Yours, etc.,
Fleet. “Chassis.”
 
[We do not necessarily associate ourselves with opinions expressed by correspondents. We regret that owing to pressure on space many letters are held over.—Ed.]