Packard Forum Index » Pre-War (1899-1942)

Peter: Here is what one Rolls Royce offical is 1930 had to say about Rolls Royce compaired to American Luxury Cars

Ernest Hives head of RR experimental department at Derby England, came to the USA and visited the New York Auto Show in 1930.

Upon return to Derby and talking with Henery Royce he stated to Royce the following. When Cadillac, Packard, and Lincoln have cucstom built bodies, as regards to gneral lines and finish, we can show them nothing very much better.
As regards to price, one almost hesitates to make a comparision.


John F. Shireman

Then there is that other lovely little ditty, probably apocryphal, that when questioned at the time of the introduction of the 50s RR V8, and when asked just how good it was, the engineer is said to have responded "damn near as good as a Chrysler!".

Perhaps in part because my tastes in style developed on this side of the pond, and no disrespect to our British friends, but I find VERY FEW RR cars to be attractive. Too stodgy and awkward looking.

I doubt that Rolls represented much of a competitive concern to Packard, they were very different cars and appealed to somewhat different clientele. Certainly the Rolls V12 (Phantom V?) of the late 30s was no threat, it was an overcomplicated and unreliable engine, damn near a disaster.

All of that aside, RR certainly was an admirable machine.

Several years ago I read a book about Rolls-Royce I recall that it mentioned in the mid to late 1930's Rolls-Royce bought at least one Buick to compare it to their product. The Prince of Wales was fond of most things American including his mistress Wallis Warfield Simpson and RR was quite chagrined that he drove a Buick. The engineers were quite amazed at how quiet the all steel bodied Buick was as they were using only composite bodies at the time. They were also very impressed with the power especially since the Buick was priced at only a small fraction of what even the lowest priced RR cost.

Owen: I remember one story I read concerning when RR started purchasing GM hydramatics. RR started polishing all the rough and internal surfaces on the hydramatic and couldn't figure out why the hydramatic would shift or operate properly for them.

GM had to come to rescue of RR and told them to leave well enough alone.


John F. Shireman

Even though Rolls Royce and Bentley were seperate companies for a while until they merged, I feel they made the same quality of car. And I also feel that Ettore` Bugatti said it best back then: "W.O. Bentley makes the fastest trucks in Europe." Packard was/is a better car than Rolls Royce ever was, and would still be with us if they would have not cheapened their product. Compare a V12 Rolls Royce to a Packard V12, with the same body from the same manufacturer and I think even Petey will agree, the Packard's the better car. I'm talking chassis for chassis here, bodies and appointments not withstanding.

Dr. F. Llewellyn Smith Rolls Royce chairman during the 30's made the following remark about the handling of the RR Phantom II.

The Phantom II handles like an electric eel, the front half of which was not on speaking terms with the rear half.

John F. Shireman

John's comment about body quality, and some of the other "posts" bring up a number of interesting points about comparing Packard products with Rolls Royce products.

As I noted earlier, Rolls start to fall behind in the early 30's, and never recovered. While the 1920's Phantom I was a performance leader, they didn't adopt rapid increaes in technology, that our American manufacturers put to good use.

So while a 1920's era Rolls will out accelerate, out speed, and out handle the much less expensive American luxury car of that era, by the 30's, we got ahead of them.

I never cease to be amazed at the lousy body quality on some of the classic-era Rolls products. Mine had a Brewster body - made here in the United States. Was pretty good.

John once referred to my Packard V-12's body as a "rolling chicken coop". Is he ever right ! By the late 1930's, GM, Ford, and Chrysler had gone to all-steel construction. Packard, Lincoln, what was left of Pierce Arrow production, and Rolls Royce still had those backward "composite" bodies, which, as John said in his "chicken coop" comment, were inferior in every respsect to a well-engineered all steel body. Yes, I will match a production Packard V-12 body with a Rolls any day ( again, Rolls didn't build bodies - but if ANY of the English body-builders built a body as well as Packard did, I havn't seen it).

Fact is, by the late 1930's, advances in technology made the big "super cars" out-moded dinasours. Take a '38 Buick Century, for example. Yeah, it had babbit rod bearings. But it had a nice, light, super-strong all steel body, and a good over-head valve engine, in terms of effiency. You cant tell me its driving experience was significantly less than my Packard v-12 of the same year.

The introduction of ever higher octane fuels, giving us ever more effiency from smaller engines, and the rubber engine mount, smoothing out the impulses of smaller engines, making the multi-cylinder engines unnecessary, were a mark of progress.

As others in here have noted, by the late 1940's, the Rolls was still a great 1920's car, but we were building products vastly superior for the driving mission of that era.

As far as John's comment about the Phantom III (the late 30's Rolls V-12, I disagree. It was a damn good car, offering handling and performance at least as good as a Packard V-12 (that is, until you ran too fast too long and burned out the rod bearings...!). SOME of the bodies were damn good - others, little more than nicelu upholstered junk.

Naw, John - you are wrong - they were high quality and very reliable. Lack of frequent oil changes is what caused ther hyd. valve problems - they were just ahead of the advances in oil technology.

My 39 Henney drives twice as good as my 57 Rolls Royce Silver Cloud ever did! The Packard also costs half as much to fix...(It gets as many stares too!!!LOL)

We should not lose sight of the fact that Rolls Royce automobiles were built for the elite moneyed class of the British Isles. The country is small by the standards of North America and in the 1930's there were no high speed roads such as the Lincoln Highway etc. Even today it would be a challenge to manoever any large car on most of the narrow twisty roads of England so cars of the Rolls-Royce class were built for a different set of roads conditions that didn't include the need for sustained high speeds. They were also mostly driven and maintained by chauffeurs who understood the car. In a nutshell Bentley, even after being bought by RR in 1931 was considered a car for the "sporting" set who did their own driving and who quite often wintered in France which did have modern highways so were built for a different purpose and clientel. When the comment from "Le Patron" about "W.O." making the "fastest lorries in Europe" (or perhaps "the world")was made Bentley was an independent make and had won at Le Mans 4 times between 1923 and 1931. They were fitted at one point with an enormous 8 liter engine so some truth to the comment about being truck like and maybe some sour grapes as well.

can you imagine how pathetic it would be to try and keep up with a '40-'49 Packard "356" engined car ( Packard 160, 180; Packard Super Clipper/Custom, etc...if all you had was a Rolls Royce of the same vintage.....(probably be even more pathetic than trying to keep up with a mid-to-late 20's Rolls Royce Phantom if all you had was a Packard, Lincoln, Cadillac, Pierce, etc. of that era...!

bottom line - you know what drag racers and "girls of the night" agree on - "AINT NO SUBSTITUTE FOR CUBIC INCHES.."