Peak torque on a MK3 Zephyr 6 is 180nm at 2400 rpm. Peak torque on the 3 cyl 1.0 turbo Hyundai engine is 172nm from 1500-4000rpm, and that applies to both 100 and 120bhp versions of the engine.

Torque is one factor, gear ratios and vehicle weight are also significant.

I doubt that a Zephyr weighs much more than a current i20, overall gear ratio of the Zephyr on smaller wheels was much lower. (25 mph/1000 rpm in top)

I specifically said the i20 felt inflexible in urban traffic, on part throttle, peak torque implies foot down acceleration, doesn't it?

A 4 cyl Zephyr is about the same kerb weight as the i20, a Zephyr 6 is about 150kg more.

But having a high peak torque means more torque on part throttle, you surely can't have one without the other?.

I did test drive a manual Bayon before ordering ours. Don't recall whether it was the 100 or 120bhp version, but I didn't find a problem with its power delivery over the 5 miles or so we did. And that was all in 30 and 40mph speed limit areas.

Road test from 1962 for a Zephyr 4 - times have changed. Weight is 1155kg - no crumple zones, window and seat motors, etc. Top speed 76mph (automatic). 0-60 about 25 seconds (auto). Fuel consumption 23mpg.

Ford Zephyr 4 Road Test 1962 | Flickr

It may have charm and on a sunny Sunday at a classic car show would be delightful. As a daily driver - not a chance.

A lot of the tech going into current cars is, I suspect, preparatory for autonomous vehicles. It is expensive to develop reliable systems, but manufacturing costs are fairly low.

Basic tech building blocks of modern car systems - a webcam (£20?), security light with sensor (£20?), laser measure £25?) Electric power steering, ABS braking, engine management systems all make car control relatively straightforward.

<< As you think stop start is pointless, I'd have to assume you think air pollution is a figment of the government's imagination?.>>

Perhaps 'pointless' is not the right word, but it is another example of authority forcing thoughtless people to obey some rule which, if thinking, they could easily do for themselves. But unless the stop is unusually long, the emissions saved must be truly marginal, as some energy has to be returned to the battery to compensate for restarting the engine ? I suspect a good deal of it is for makers to score brownie points.

Yes, you could switch the car off, but if you spend a lot of time in stop start traffic, a normal battery will soon be knackered. Marginal gains?, yes, looked at for each car. But looked at for all/most cars, ultimately lots of little savings add up to big savings.

In the case of the early stop start systems, they didn't work very quickly and required an expensive battery specifically to do it. Even then, battery failures are not unusual. The system in the OP's courtesy car, in our Bayon, and in most modern cars (which aren't full hybrid) is done by the mild hybrid system rather than the actual car battery. They work properly, starting the car the instant your foot is lifted from the brake pedal and recharge themselves as the car drives.

Manufacturers get huge fines for exceeding what is decreed as an acceptable fleet average (that is to say, all the cars made by the manufacturer) emissions. mild hybrid systems are a relatively inexpensive means to lower that fleet average. So not so much about scoring brownie points as saving themselves money they'd otherwise be fined.

<< However, not all drivers pay as much attention to the road as they should, so overall I think it is better for cars to have them than to not. >>

And maybe this gadget will encourage those drivers to pay even less attention ?

Yes, it is a slippery slope. And that is the main reason I am not as against self driving cars as some forum members. Some people simply shouldn't be allowed on the road, but for whatever reason, they have a license and are!.

If we're missing older cars that were just wonderful in their day, i offer my '69 Vauxhall Ventora, which was basically an FD Victor with the 3.3 6 pot lump from the Cresta under the bonnet.

4 speed box overdrive, in overdrive it would pull seamlessly from 10mph through to the 110mph which the fastest i ever took it, most journeys could be completed in top gear just using the overdrive switch to aid speeds below 10mph.

There have been so many cars that people raved about over the years that just left me disappointed, pool car Mondeos and Focus with the Diesel lump, utterly horrible to drive, prone to stalling unless you gave them heaps of throttle and about 1000rpm of useful torque band before you needed to find another gear then another, boneshaker ride to boot, but all i read in places like thisat the time was how well they handled (did people say that just to be in tune with the motoring hacks?), every time i was so happy to get back in whichever old large engined bus i happened to own at the time.

I feel the same as Galileo, i don't want all the faff, just like so many others here have covered millions of miles without any of this nanny stuff, just one of the many reasons we keep running our old cars, its a bonus that doing so annoys all the right people :-)