The first era commences with the production of six new model C 10 engines in 1910, at the Luton Vauxhall factory.16 Focusing on the ‘activity’ of engine C10.2. for the period 1910-1912, this story refers to the impressive competition performance of engine C10.2., which included many ‘firsts’ in various significant events.17 Given the lack of adequate factory records, it also highlights the commitment of enthusiasts of early Vauxhalls to identify the competition ‘life’ of engine C10.2. to the time that it was put in chassis A11 517 in 1911 for export to a customer in the Colonies.
In a climate when car manufacturers were seriously contemplating how to market their cars, it was soon realised that an effective marketing strategy was to demonstrate the reliability and performance of their product via competitions such as hill climbs, speed trials and reliability trials18. Vauxhall directors also saw the potential for overseas markets, and with improved reliability, performance became the important focus. They therefore believed that there was considerable value in continuing to participate in competitions in the UK and extended this to involvement in European competition events.19
Competition records demonstrate that Vauxhalls had developed a credible presence by 1908 and this was continued into 1910 -1912 with a particular focus on the new 20hp Vauxhall engine and cars. There were many new records and impressive performances across all forms of competition; hill climbs, speed racing and reliability trials and
“… Vauxhalls determined to continue to race… and to race to win. They believed the
commercial advantages were well worth the effort. And after all, they enjoyed it!” 20
Following some detailed deductions, it is known that the engine, C10.2. in various modified states was used frequently by Vauxhall in competition cars driven by different people, chassis configurations, car bodies and road registrations.21
As part of their marketing strategy, Vauxhall Motors entered cars in European Reliability Trials starting with three 20hp cars (C10.1, C10.2. and C10.3) in the Prince Heinrich Fahrt Tour (1200 miles) of 2/6/1910. The “… cars were the first of a new C 10 model with a three litre engine …”.22 While these cars did not win a place given the competition with bigger and more powerful cars, it was acknowledged that they had run “… an impressively reliable performance…”23 especially when taking into account the very poor condition of Prussian roads in the early part of the trial.
After the trial, and as a consequence of the combination of the new radiator, sleek torpedo body and credible performance, these cars became known as “Prince Henry” type Vauxhalls. By the end of 1912, these cars were produced and sold as “Prince Henry Vauxhalls”.24
Engine C10.2. was used in the latter part of 1910 in the car that made a number of records including the World Record 21hp Flying Half Mile at Brooklands at a speed of 100.083 mph.25 In addition to these, it is believed that engine C10.2. was in the Kidner car in the 1911 Russian Reliability Trial (1400miles) which won its class.26 Portway has described parts of the routes in Russia as consisting of “… bone shaking cobbles, but for most of the distance the roads were simply defined tracks …” and in one area, consisted of deep sand. While 14 cars had retired by the halfway mark, it was reported that the Vauxhall did not have any mechanical difficulties “… it ran faultlessly throughout the event …” and did not accrue any penalties.27
C10.2. was also in one of the two cars in the 1912 Great Winter Reliability Trial of the Royal Swedish Automobile Club (600 miles) which “… everyone regarded as a highly successful event for Vauxhalls.”28
As the conditions for the Prussian and Russian Trials were extremely challenging, so they were in the Swedish Trial. For part of the route, it “…snowed continuously and the two Vauxhalls drove on soft powder snow, often quite deep, at night, on rutted roads, in frighteningly low temperatures…”.29
While Vauxhall Motors enjoyed impressive results from competition events, Portway has indicated consistently that “…With these Vauxhalls, very few components were marked with the chassis numbers, so it is wellnigh impossible to be sure of the sources of parts. Another factor comes into play here the ‘C’ Prince Henry cars were drawn from the production line of A.11 cars and built up to a higher specification Prince Henrys, and were often known by their A type and C type numbers, all rather confusing… Vauxhalls would build up a car for a particular competition in those days and the way in which individual engines were used, was not recorded in any way that we know of …”30
Further to this, in some instances registration number plates were transferred between cars. As Portway wryly commented “… This has caused some later historians much confusion.” 31
Alisdaire Lockhart also refers to the confused numbering of cars; “…These cars were designated by the Company as the “Prince Henry” type A Type and in the Works Order schedules were recorded twice, once as C10 cars against their A11 or A12 parentage, and then again in summary showing all 57 C10 cars!
Here the problems start: not all C10 cars are recorded twice and not all fifty-seven C10 car numbers were assigned to cars. In fact, of the fifty-seven C10 cars listed in the summary sheet, there are no details recorded against numbers …”.32
The following comments from Portway and others illustrate more challenges in tracing the early history of the ‘C’ engine cars – especially those used for competitions.
Excerpt from email letter – Portway to Lockhart 20/2/200333
“…I expect that John [Ellis] has mentioned that I have sent him a few photos, mostly of works competition cars, and other bits of information to try and sort out the origins of the bits which he has, in particular C10.2.
In doing what I have done, I have tried to use original source material, rather than going and looking at surviving cars. I believe that almost all of the C.10 remains have been mucked about with in some way between their conception and the present, quite a number of them in the first month or two of their life, before they left UK. There is probably nothing that exists today which represents what Vauxhalls produced in its truly original form. There is the added complication that most of the remains are in Australia, which firstly is difficult for me to get to and secondly was used by Vauxhalls as a disposal ground for works cars of various kinds and oddballs, all hidden amongst the normal production models. Add to that the coming of so called ‘Colonial’ models, ‘C’s with ‘D’ chassis etc., and the picture is very complicated …”.
Vauxhall Motors ‘Running Shop’ records, and ‘Erecting Shop Records’ were and still are important sources of information, albeit, as with other records, considerable interpolation of the data has been needed for these to be helpful.
The rich information in Portway’s two most recent books, together with his comments in his letters to Ellis (and others) has enabled the development of the history of the evolution of this early Vauxhall competition engine – in spite of the factory practice of changing parts after each competition, and the necessity to interpret records to ‘join the dots’.
The following excerpts from correspondence, illustrate the nature of the research of some of the significant competition history of engine C10.2.
Excerpt from letter – email Ellis to Latreille 12/6/84 34
In this letter to Latreille, Ellis quoted from a “Descriptive Catalogue for 1912 issued by Vauxhall Motors Ltd” p.39 as follows;
“In October,1910, a 19.90 (R.A.C. rating) four-cylindered Vauxhall car, Chassis and Engine No. C10.2., B.A.R.C. No. 462, weighing over 1,800-lbs., established the following Records: 21-hp (R.A.C. rating) Class Short Distance Record, average speed of 100.08 mph., 21-hp. (R.A.C. Rating) Class Long Distance Record, average speed of 90.22mph., a performance still unequalled …”.
In the same document, Ellis followed the above quote with the next from “The Sporting Car” – brochure for Vauxhall Prince Henry, 1913. P.11
“The Vauxhall-Prince Henry thus became a regular model at the end of 1911. Proof of its ability to cope with road work was soon afforded in the severe Swedish Winter Trophy Trial of 1912, one of the Vauxhall cars competing in which was propelled by the identical Brooklands engine [ C10.2.] that had been used in setting up the 100 m.p.h. and
90.22m.p.h records of 1910”.
Ellis commented that it “… would seem from [these contemporary publications] that Engine No. C10.2. was, around 1911, removed from the record breaker and put in a trials car. There is a photo in ‘The Motor’ of 12th Sept 1911, page 228, of Mr Kidner on a Vauxhall trial car for ‘the forthcoming reliability race from St Petersburg to Sebastopol”.
Excerpt from email letter – Portway to Ellis 16/4/200135
“… The first reference to C10.2. (referred to by that chassis number) that I know of is in Autocar for August 26 1911, when Vauxhalls gave details of the BARC certificate for records taken on 22 October 1910, in a letter to the magazine.
If you then go to the copy of the magazine for 29/10/1910, it shows a photo of the car which had just taken the record for ten laps at over 90 MPH. This is identical in appearance to the car which on October 26th put in the flying half mile at just over 100 MPH, so here we have C10.2. [and] C10.2. …” – that is, these are two different references to the same engine (C10.2.). “ … The photo which I am going to try and get to you shows clearly that the chassis of the car has been drilled for running board brackets, hardly necessary for a single seater, and I believe that this car must have had a former existence as a road equipped car before it’s Brooklands exploits. As the erecting shop record shows a date of 8/11/11 for A11-517/C10.2. there was plenty of time in between for the car to appear elsewhere as a works machine …”.
Excerpt from email letter – Portway to Ellis 17/4/200136
“… We also know that Hancock won the White and Poppe Handicap on 5/10/1910, but we do not know which of the three single seater cars he used.
Hancock then tackled the records, starting on 7/10/1910, with the car in the photo, C.10-2 [and] C.10-2 one of the three which appeared in August. You have confirmed by looking at the photo that the car is based on an A.09 frame; indeed, at that time, Vauxhalls had not got going on the A.11. But we know that the car was known as C10.2., so Vauxhalls had by then started numbering C.10 cars.
It is possible that C10.2. was based on either BM867 or V922, two of the 1910 Prince Henry Trial cars… All this was long before the Erecting Shop date for A11-517, (8/11/1911) or for the issue of the registration number V1088 …”.
Excerpt from email letter- Portway to Ellis 23/7/200137
A further indication that pointed to the engine being a competition engine is Portway’s comment that the “…diaries [Ernest Fraser’s diary] also state that the competition engines built around then [1910] used 40mm White and Poppe carburettors bored out to 45mm choke, which ties up with the records even if the numbers are not in line …”. The Erecting Shop records also note that C10.2. A11-517 was fitted with the White and Poppe 40 mm carburettors.ref
Excerpt from email letter – Portway to Ellis 30/11/200138
“… I suppose that from your point of view, using the logic which I suggest, it looks extremely likely that the car that Kidner used for the Swedish Trial was fitted with engine C10.2. and therefore was the source of the bits which you now own …”. (Note; Portway has confirmed that Kidner’s car was fitted with engine C10.2.)39
Excerpt from email letter – Ellis to Portway39(date not recorded but in response to
the above)
“… With respect to the Prince Henry Trial cars, it may be that they did not get a number or have it recorded, until they were sold by the factory, perhaps in a different form from that in which they competed…
I am not sure which Swedish Trial car used engine C10.2.; I have presumed that it was the one with the high chassis, but there is no real basis for that. After the cars returned to the factory, they could have just bolted together the bits they didn’t want any more and sent the result off to Australia. There is ample evidence here that many ‘odd bins’ were sent to this country…”.
Excerpt from email letter – Ellis to Portway 1/12/200140
“… Also bear in mind that the Running Shop records give A11-517/C10-517 for my car, with the C10.2. coming from actual component markings… This peculiarity is also found on Max Wurst’s car A11-578/A11-578 in the records, with the engine stamped A11-578 and C.10-9… In fact, all of the first 21 C10s in the records have a dual identity or the space for them is left blank … There must have been some mild chaos at the time! …”.
Excerpt from email letter – Ellis to Portway 14/1/200241
“… I deduce, or guess that my car is what the factory made out of the Russian Trial car you mention, when they had finished with it. All the visible details are consistent with that hypothesis. There is a photo of the Running Shop in ‘1910-11’ on page 14 of the 1980 factory “History of Vauxhall’ with a Prince Henry with short front dumb irons that could well be my car.”
Excerpt from email letter – Ellis to Lockhart 29/12/200242
“… My car is referred to as C10-517 in the A11 Running Shop records. Its correlation with C10.2. is from physical evidence. Max’s [Wurst] car is referred to as A11-578 and its correlation with C.10-9 is solely from physical evidence….
… all the contemporary photos of Prince Henry cars with 12” brakes show high cars with the A11-like frame. Both survivors with 12” brakes, my car and Max’s have this type of frame…”.
Excerpt from email letter – Portway to Marj Ellis 20/8/201943
“Regarding the car which you call A.11-517, I believe that John had the mortal remains of this car and had added other bits from a variety of sources to complete the vehicle. With these Vauxhalls, very few components were marked with the chassis numbers, so it is wellnigh impossible to be sure of the sources of parts. Another factor comes into play here the ‘C’ type Prince Henry cars were drawn from the production of A.11 cars and built up to higher specification Prince Henrys, and were often known by their A type and C type numbers, all rather confusing.
Among the parts that John acquired was the camshaft marked C10.2. undoubtedly from the engine of one of the first three Prince Henrys built. Vauxhalls would build up a car for a particular competition in those days and the way in which individual engines were used, was not recorded in any way that we know of. There is no doubt, however, that parts of the first three Prince Henrys were used in other competition cars, and this goes a little way to explain how this particular camshaft found its way to Australia, presumably in another Sporting Prince Henry. Which car, one can only guess, but probably one destined for competition work …”.
Excerpt from email letter – Portway to Ral Rainsford 28/11/201944
In response to enquiries from Rainsford, Portway wrote that Ellis had assembled his car from ‘… differing parts of a number of early Vauxhalls, and it was virtually impossible to define a correct specification to use to build the car up. What is possible to achieve is probably a matter of what parts are available, and what can be fabricated to original specification, but to match a precise spec of a Prince Henry Vauxhall is probably impossible …”.
He adds that “… John had acquired a large number of Vauxhall components of the period, and the mortal remains of A11-517. He had also owned for a long time the camshaft marked C10.2. which came from one of the original 1910 Prince Henry Trial Cars, actually the one driven by Hancock. This car was extensively altered by the works for use in competition and carried at least three differing bodies before it even left England for a life in Australia. As a 40mm W & P Carburettor is amongst the parts inherited by John, it seems to me highly possible that the car, as imported to Australia, was fitted with this instrument. Using a 40mm carburettor such as this was a normal modification to the standard engine carried out by Vauxhalls on these cars for competition, but as far as I know they were never fitted to normal Prince Henrys supplied to customers…”.
Excerpt from email letter – Portway to Mussared 19/4/201045
Portway responded to a request from Peter Mussared for some information “… While a great deal of detail is lost with time, there are some bits we do know. Here goes:
There were three cars specially built at Vauxhalls for the Prince Henry trial of 1910. They were works entered for Kidner, Hancock and Rudolph Selz. They were C10 1, 2 and 3.
The cars were all similar, and were built on a new design of chassis, four inches narrower than a standard ‘A’ type and incorporating tubular cross members. They also rose some two inches more than a standard ‘A’ over the rear axle. There were other detail changes. They were fitted with gearboxes developed from the B.09 design, lighter than an ‘A’ type gearbox and with only two selector rods as the original design was only a three speed box. A fourth speed was incorporated in exactly the same way as in Y1 and Y2… and a reverse was likewise added by inserting an extra pinion as in Y1 and Y2. This reverse was operated by the extra lever outside the coach work on these three cars with the four forward speeds selected by a different lever inboard. I have never found any criticism of this arrangement in Vauxhall papers and can only assume that for the purposes of works competition cars it worked fine… The axles were of course narrower than standard ‘A’ type to fit the narrower chassis. The three cars were to have been fitted with Pomeroy’s overhead valve engine, specially designed for them, but the design proved to be unreliable and lacking in power on the test bench, and eventually side valve units were fitted.
The cars ran with great regularity in the Trial, and afterwards returned to England, where the bodies were removed and the three cars were fitted with single seater streamlined bodies in order to compete in the O’Gorman trophy race at Brooklands on August 2nd. After the Brooklands meeting, C10.2. retained its racing body and was used by Hancock for attacks on 21hp RAC rating records. The records were recorded as being taken by Car C10.2 with Engine C10.2. The engine of this car was rebuilt time and time again in the course of record breaking activity that autumn, eventually taking the flying half mile at 100 MPH.
After this it is difficult to follow the exact career of the car and engine, but the engine used by Kidner in the Russian Trial of 1911 was described as used in the 100 mph record breaker. Whether this means the actual engine, or simply the same design, I do not know, so it could have been C10.2. In his Book 2 “CLAIM the REWARDS” Portway reports that Kidner’s car included “… a tuned Prince Henry engine described as ‘Identical to the famous Brooklands record breaker’…” 46.
John said to me that the chassis which he acquired with the remains of the engine appears to be A11-517, and is exactly similar to that of Wurst’s car, now with the Melbourne gang. This appears to be a pretty standard A11, but it has clearly been modified during the course of its life. I do not know when it entered Aus; is it the Sunshine Motors car which H.V Mc Kay used at Wheeler’s Hill in Sept 1913? Whichever car it is, it appears to line up with Vauxhall’s policy of only selling cars on extra robust chassis to ‘The Colonies’. Certainly the original lightweight chassis of C10.2. would not be considered suitable for export to Aus. …PRC measurements/Photos There is however, little doubt that he has the mortal remains of the engine C10.2 which is the record breaking engine of 1910 …”.
In the context of very limited factory records, the above excerpts clearly indicate how interested parties with fastidious attention to detail, located, interpreted and shared information in a variety of different forms. It has therefore been possible to make some deductions about the remarkable competition history of engine C10.2. which have stood the test of time and critical scrutiny from interested parties.
Based on the evidence and information presented in this paper with particular reference to Nic Portway’s knowledge, Vauxhall factory records and like C.10 cars, it is believed that engine C10.2. and chassis A11-517 were overhauled in the Vauxhall Factory in 1911 in readiness for sale to Australia with the reconditioned remains of the original A11-517 Russian Trial chassis and remains of the original C10.2. engine.47 By interpolation, it is listed in the Erecting Shop Records as C10.2. A11-517 with a “Date of Manufacture of 8/11/1911”.48 However, it is also known that engine C10.2. was in one of the cars of the Swedish Car Trial (Feb 1912).48 On the return of C10.2. from the Swedish Trial and prior to leaving the Vauxhall Motors factory, it is therefore believed that C10.2. and chassis A11-517 would have been ‘tidied up’ again in the style of the Russian Trial Car as a saleable car ready for export to the Colonies.
This is the end of the first era and beginning of the second.
In his paper, titled “The 1911 Prince Henry 20hp Vauxhall C10.2./A.11-517 ITS PROVENANCE HYPOTHESIS” James Scammell has tracked the likely circumstances about how C10.2. A11-517 arrived in Australia. [56]
It is believed that H.V McKay bought this Prince Henry Vauxhall in the early part of 1912 and that it arrived in Australia in September 1912. In a history of Melbourne, it is noted that the “… McKays were agents for a selection of marques including Vauxhall [and that] … H.V. McKay drove a Vauxhall himself …”. [57] While there is little documented information about the car in Australia, it is noted that McKay drove it during electioneering for a seat in Federal Parliament in the early months of 1913[58] and in the Wheelers Hill hill-climb on 13 September 1913.. He didn’t win the election, but he did win the hill climb – thus maintaining the competition status of the car. The newspaper report of the hill-climb details noted that the Vauxhall was a 20hp – which is consistent with the hp of C10.2. A11-517.[59.
The next and last information about the car in this second era comes from newspaper reports of a car accident on 1st Dec 1913 near Mangalore (country Victoria) when McKay was driving the Prince Henry Vauxhall with two others to Berrigan (country New South Wales). Following the crash, there are no known references about this car until 1980 except for the curious newspaper report of 8 Dec 1913 that H.V McKay was allegedly driving the car that crashed on 1 Dec 1913, at a hill climb on 6 Dec 1913. [60]
It would seem that after a very short but active life (of about 15 months) following its arrival in Australia, the damaged engine and other components were effectively hidden out of sight and out of mind until they were included in a rural clearing sale at Kyneton Showgrounds (Victoria, Australia) on 2/2/1980 – some 67 years later.
The third era of this story is an intriguing and rather inconclusive record of the ownership of the parts from December 1913 to the time that Ivan Smith bought them (in 1959?) who lived at Kyneton (rural Victoria).
In some hand-written notes dated 28-11-89[61], Ellis recorded that he had phoned Mr. Smith to seek information about the previous ownership of the Prince Henry Vauxhall parts that he had bought from him. It appears that Mr. Smith knew little about the original ownership of the parts which he said that he purchased along with a lot of other cars and parts about some 30 years ago (about 1959) from someone who had moved to Kyneton from Melbourne. At the time of the conversation between Ellis and Smith (1989), Mr. Smith stated that the person from whom he had purchased the cars and parts was now deceased. During that conversation, Ellis noted that Mr. Smith referred to Laurie Vinall, a well-known and respected South Australian vintage and veteran car enthusiast, and Vauxhall owner. Mr Smith said that Mr. Vinall “… had told him [prior to the sale in 1980] not to let it go cheap because it was a very special car [and] that he had the literature to prove it”. Unfortunately, Ellis was then not able to follow up any details with Mr. Vinall because he had died in 1985.
There is other unsubstantiated information that the parts were discovered near Woodend, which is, in current travel time, a little more than an hour from Mangalore where H.V. McKay’s accident occurred, and ended up with Mr. Smith in Kyneton, some 12 minutes from Woodend.
There is also a report that the Vauxhall parts that went to Mr. Smith were found on a property at Mt. Macedon which had been owned by H.V McKay. The current travel time between Mt. Macedon and Kyneton is about 25 minutes.
It is also reported in Dating Committee notes that the car “… reputedly had only five owners since it came to Australia …”.[64] However, it would seem very unlikely that parts would have multiple owners, especially given that they were ‘special’ and there appears to have been no knowledge of them amongst the veteran Vauxhall enthusiasts.
Therefore, the only verified ownership history of ownership of the parts is that of Ivan Smith from about 1959 to 1981 when he sold the parts to Ellis. Two of the other suggestions are plausible -Woodend and McKay’s property, with the latter being the most plausible.
This era spans several years. Following his purchase of parts from Ivan Smith, Ellis scoured Australia for the additional period appropriate parts that he needed to restore his Prince Henry Vauxhall. He developed a reputation for attending every annual Bendigo Swap Meet, and that once there, he would be immersed in stalls from dawn to dusk to see what he could find to enable his project. Ellis also ‘tuned in’ to auctions across Australia and swapped parts with other Vauxhall aficionados.
The parts posted for Mr. Smith’s ‘giant clearing sale’ at Kyneton on 2/2/1980 certainly indicated that he had an extensive list of cars, car parts and motorbike parts for sale – as well as horse drawn vehicles. Of particular note, the list included vintage Vauxhall parts which Ellis bought. The sale list also included Prince Henry Vauxhall parts for which Ellis made a bid, but the parts were passed in..[62] Ellis made a visit to review and photograph the parts on 26 April 1981,[63]bought them later in 1981 and brought them home in 1982.
Ellis described the parts that he bought at the sale at Kyneton, in a letter to Peter Latreille dated 12/6/1984,as follows;
In his letter to Latreille, Ellis continues “… the timing case is completely missing so no knowledge of numbers on that is possible.…”. [65]
Ellis indicated that he later retrieved “… the manifolds, fan and carburettor …”.[66] and he has noted elsewhere that the car did not have a crankcase or a radiator.[67] He also recalled that the engine was missing its aluminium parts, assuming that they were scrapped and used in the WWI1 effort,[68] and refers to parts such as camshaft drive timing cover, valve covers and sump that he either had replaced with 1911 “A” type Vauxhall parts, or copied from originals.
Ellis’s description of the parts that he bought from Ivan Smith seem to be consistent with both the Vauxhall Factory practice of reconditioning cars for sale to the Colonies, and with the description of the crash on 1/12/1913 – some of which is quoted as follows;
“… despite the blown motor and bent front axle frame, absolutely nothing was worn out. The gearbox internals looked like new with not a mark on the teeth … Similarly, the steering box, track rods, wheels, springs and shackles were all in excellent condition … it had clearly thrown a connecting rod and crashed, bending the front axle and chassis. It is a fair bet that the radiator would have been damaged at the same time …”.[70]
With regard to the carburettor, it is reported that Ellis believed that factory records indicate that C10-517 “… was fitted with a 40 mm White & Poppe carburettor & such a carburettor with the appropriate inlet manifold came with the original purchase. This is consistent with the C10-517 factory specification built to Works Order 1933: but not with contemporary specifications for 1911 A Type cars…”.[71 ] In the same paper, Ellis states that “…In particular, [the car] has a White & Poppe 40mm carburettor, which is very rare on this type of car. It is clear that this is original as the inlet manifold and cooling water inlet are different to allow for the fitment of this bulky carburettor…”[72]
In “Vauxhall Prince Henry” Ellis reports that “…. the camshaft is of higher performance than normal and bears the number of an engine that Vauxhall Motors used for record attempts at Brooklands*… The chassis is an inch shorter than the normal A11 type Vauxhall at 9’6” and this is combined with reinforcement of the front dumb irons. The front axle is the heavier of the two types used on Prince Henry Vauxhalls … and has the ground clearance of the Colonial pattern car…”.[73]
On dismantling the rear axle, Ellis observed that there was no evidence of wear, but the crown wheel had “… at some stage become detached from its carrier and smashed the internal reinforcing webs from that side of the casing …”[74].
Having cleaned the serviceable steering box, Ellis was shocked to find that the steering pitman arm “… had split along the line of the keyway on the steering box shaft; and was repaired by tapping a 3/16” screw and brazing it all together!” He replaced it with a sound one from another car.[75 ]
Another important “…clue to the identity of the car was the ‘diagonal’ pattern of the mounting holes for the radiator. This complies with the fitment of the V fronted radiator of the Prince Henry type, in contrast with parallel holes on the normal A11 car …”[76]
During the process of exploring the condition of the parts, Ellis states that “… the springs were dismantled and treated with graphite lubricant prior to reassembly. Fortunately, all the bushes and pins just needed cleaning and assembly. Nearly all the grease caps were still there; one had lost its cap and a replacement was found at a swap meeting. A length of channel steel had been cut from an engine bearer: fortunately the complex end sections were still in place, so a simple repair was made…”.[77]
With regard to the rear axle, Ellis reports that he was encouraged “… by the good condition of the internals, other than the missing internal webs on the crown wheel side …” it was reassembled to specification.[78]
Ellis suggested that the car had “… a very short and very hard life…” [79]
After considerable time and effort searching for parts across Australia, Ellis found most of what he needed to rebuild the car through “… attendance at a couple of auctions of well known collections …”. In particular, he stated that he bought some parts that were previously owned by George Green*, as well as A11 parts and a complete A11 tourer (A11.440) from Bob Collett in Queensland. The parts from Collett included an upper crankcase, with a casting stamp for 1911. The substance of this information has been
verified by both Bob Collett and Gary Rainsford – with Gary buying the A type tourer (which he still owns) from Ellis as part of the transaction with Bob Collett in 1987[ 80] Ellis
stated that the sump and block for the car “…came from the Latreille collection of bits when I bought what is now [Mussared’s] car …”. [81]
Ralston (Ral) Rainsford believed that “… the motor was built up using a crankcase and sump which were spares [that] came from QLD [along with a restored] 1911 A Type … I do know that John obtained the aluminium side valve cover plates from England. Someone over there was having a set cast … and John managed to get an additional set for himself…”[69].
Ellis’s information is consistent with Ral Rainsford’s comments (above) that he had a new timing cover and valve covers cast in the U.K. In correspondence with Alisdaire Lockhart it is evident that he was contemplating getting a casting of an original camshaft drive cover. It is unclear how this proceeded, but the inference is that one was required – and the communications also suggest that parts were swapped between Ellis and key English enthusiasts.[82]
The parts that Ellis bought did not include a car body or radiator. Given the association of engine C10.2. with the Russian Car Trial, Ellis decided to build a body in the style of the Russian Reliability Trial car and carefully researched photos to ascertain how to design it. One such photo is in Portway’s Book which is the car that Kidner drove with engine C10.2. in the 1911 Russian Reliability Trial, winning his class. [83] This engine is described as identical to the famous Brooklands record breaker [NP p.14][82] check ref for this
In his paper “VAUXHALL PRINCE HENRY” Ellis explained that by “… getting all of the photos of these cars that I could, I reverse engineered the dimensions and shape of the Russian Trial body … It was clearly designed for low cost, light weight, and ease of construction. It is doorless, hoodless, flimsy and poorly finished …”.[84]
With regard to finding a radiator for the car, Ellis commented that as “… every Prince Henry Vauxhall I had seen, in real life or photos, appeared to have a different radiator from the next, this turned into an absorbing and frustrating study…”.[85]
Ellis put in a huge amount of time searching for a suitable radiator and while he had heard of some Prince Henry radiators for sale in country locations, he did not manage to find one..[86] He therefore joined with others to make one from scratch, which was incredibly challenging.
Some of the difficulties in making the radiator noted by Ellis included taking account of chassis types “… of different dimensions and styles…”, and design problems because “… none of [the] stylish V-fronted radiators were actually much good for cooling the engine …”.[86]
As part of his research, Ellis found photos that indicated the “… absence of flutes on the radiator of the car used in the 1911 Russian Reliability Trial…”. He also noted that it “… appeared that a similar radiator was later used on the works hill climb special car, which was used as a test vehicle and changed its specifications and appearance often. The mechanical similarities between the Russian Trial car and mine were remarkable and lead me to believe that it is the same car, cleaned up and refitted with a production radiator, before being despatched to the other end of the earth”.[87]
He explained that the new “… radiator is being built in the standard early ‘heavy chassis’ Prince Henry style. This is because there is no record of a Vauxhall with a non-fluted V radiator in Australia … [and] is the result of painstaking research on the early export PH cars … An identical [radiator] now graces the ex-Wurst Prince Henry in Melbourne. They are different in several respects from the Winter Trials car’s radiator.” [88]
Taking account of the fact that Vauxhall imports to Australia all had ‘flutes’, Ellis flagged that the replica car “… will not look identical to the Russian Trial car, as the radiator will have flutes and correspond to the ‘second generation’ radiator for the first production cars. That is because it is virtually certain that it would not have left the factory with the no-flute radiator and there is a photo of a chassis just like mine with that style of fluted radiator in the running shop at that time.”[89]
Notwithstanding the lack of, and/or confusing factory records in relation to the changes made to the early competition engines and the numbering of engines and chassis, the evidence in support of the likelihood that this car is the ‘mortal remains’ of C10.2.A11-517 is as follows;
To summarise the end of the fourth era, information about the parts that Ellis bought in 1981 is provided in some detail, along with information about period appropriate parts that he sourced – with reference to a few of the parts for which he had period appropriate replicas made. Information about the parts that Ellis bought in 1981 have confirmed that he has ‘the mortal remains’ of engine C10.2. and chassis A11-517. Further, the evidence points to the very strong likelihood that this car left Vauxhall Motors in 1912 as the recommissioned chassis of the ‘Russian Reliability Trial’ car.
The fifth and last stage of the story continues …
Having gathered information about the ‘life’ of engine C10.2., and collected the parts needed to restore the car, Ellis made a start on his restoration. It is thought that he started work on this in about 2007.
Ellis was not able to complete the restoration, so after an interval of some years, in 2017, the incomplete car and remaining parts were shipped to David Ford to complete the restoration. David is a professional restorer of veteran and vintage cars, who has a particular interest in early Vauxhalls. (Barry Ford and Sons Pty. Ltd.,) Stanthorpe Queensland.
Following a review of the car, it became evident that Ford should undertake a complete restoration which was duly achieved in 2023.
All invoices from David Ford are available.
In the process of running the restored car in, Ford has stated that it “… drives extremely well. In particular it steers and brakes well – and it goes better than some 30-98s.”
Ford’s experience of driving the car accords very well with Portway’s prediction made in 2019 – at the end of this paper on p.19.
PLEASE NOTE;
It is believed that at some point before March 2009, Ellis metal stamped the unmarked period replacement crank case (which has no evidence of any number being removed) with C10.2. and the reproduction timing cover with C.10.517. There is no record of his thinking about this, however, the following points are relevant:
Include different perspective re stamping?
To conclude the story to date, Ellis was intensely interested in the history of the parts that he bought in 1981and he also enjoyed the challenges of discovering pieces of information that helped to build the mosaic of the ‘lives’ of C10.2. and A11-517. He valued his contact with others who were on similar roads of discovery.
He was deeply disappointed that he was not able to enjoy the results of his long-term efforts and commitment – but would be delighted for others to marvel at the skill, ‘daring do’ and enthusiasm that have been so very much a part of the journey of those associated with the ‘lives’ of C10.2. and A11-517. And he would wish for the story of this special part of motoring history to be valued and continued.
Finally, Ellis would be very ‘chuffed’ that Nic Portway has posed the question;
“… should we call this car a (handsome) replica, or a real Prince Henry…?”
and
Ellis would certainly welcome and warmly endorse Portway’s comment;
“… Whatever is achieved it should be great fun to drive”.[103]