Alan
I can only guess what Donald thought of this engine but if he had heard
what I had heard at Cowley, Oxford he would not have been impressed.
It was hard to work out what Rolls Royce were up to trying to get this
engine into a medium volume saloon. Somebody suggested that it was
something to do with a frustrated military order but again this is just
hearsay.
What I do recall from those in the Cowley repair shop at the time was
that the whole Princess R was a disaster and this included the engine. I
was based in the next building to the repair shop at the time. This was
staffed by very helpful and experienced engineers and mechanics. They
even lent me specialist service tools overnight, but that is another
story.
All cars that developed problems during road test and some returned by
customers were sent to the repair shop. This was on the other side of
the Cowley road from the production line and parking was a problem. We
had to use the same space and it was a real free for all. One could
judge from the new cars were around what production problems were being
encountered at the time.
At one point there were more Princess Rs than all the other badged big
BMC saloons such as the Wolsley 6/110 and this with the Princess R being
a low percentage of production output at the time.
Talking to the repair shop people they said that the Princess R was a
disaster and this included the engine. Maybe they were a little biassed
but they showed me evidence, for example, of RR con rods taken from
engines that were not straight and numerous other major quality
problems. This would be something that RR should have been ashamed of.
They appeared to be trying to use their name for high quality to sell
low quality engines. Of course they would deny this but perhaps we were
lucky as Austin-Healey enthusiasts that the 4000 did not succeed.
All the best
>
>The Healey 4000 was a prototype using a 4 liter Rolls Royce motor. I
>think two or three were made, only two are known to exist. I think
>Rolls was fairly keen on the idea but I think lackluster performance
>nixed the whole idea from Donald Healey... plus the healey was
>considered an old design by 1968. I think the idea that most buyers
>would have put an automatic in the car (as being marketed through
>Rolls showrooms) probably sent a shudder up Donald's spine!
>
>You can see what it looks like here:
>
>http://www.rmahc.com/healey4000.html
>
>Regards,
>
>Alan
>
>'53 BN1 '64 BJ8
>
>On 7/2/05, Edward Anderson <eandy01@tcnmail.com> wrote:
>> This is a new thing for me and can't resist asking. What is a 4000 and
>> does anyone have a link for a photo of one?
>> Ed had 57,60,59&61 tri carb and all big AH
>
--
John Harper
|