# data.attributes.title
Car review condemned for not specifying lb ft 'of torque'

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Car review condemned for not specifying lb ft 'of torque' | Top Gear

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Readership left flummoxed after review stipulates ‘310lb ft’ with no further explanation

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Car review condemned for not specifying lb ft 'of torque'

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Readership left flummoxed after review stipulates ‘310lb ft’ with no further explanation

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Car review condemned for not specifying lb ft 'of torque'

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Readership left flummoxed after review stipulates ‘310lb ft’ with no further explanation

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Car review condemned for not specifying lb ft 'of torque'

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Car review condemned for not specifying lb ft 'of torque'

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Readership left flummoxed after review stipulates ‘310lb ft’ with no further explanation

# data.attributes.body.value
Here’s TopGear.com’s roving correspondent, Cory Spondent, with his mostly incorrect exclusives from the world of motoring

The internet is up in arms after a review of the Ford Focus ST made a passing reference to its ‘310lb ft’ of torque without specifically saying ‘of torque’.

The author of the review has now gone into hiding, having brazenly ditched decades of automotive convention by assuming the unit alone would be enough for readers to understand what was meant.

It’s widely accepted that the humble pound-foot - sometimes also expressed in Newton metres - has a unique place in motoring lexicon because rotational forces are mind-numbingly complex and so rarely used in any other context.

Whereas speed, weight and miles per gallon are all universally understood, hence why ‘mph of speed’ and ‘kg of mass’ are deemed laughable and unnecessary.

The offending review has kickstarted a campaign to give 'of torque' and other common turns of phrase protected status, akin to those enjoyed by swans and areas of natural beauty.

Popular suggestions so far include ‘firm ride’, 'numb steering', ‘premium interior’ and ‘click these blue words’ when referring to a hyperlink.

# data.attributes.body.processed
Here’s TopGear.com’s roving correspondent, Cory Spondent, with his mostly incorrect exclusives from the world of motoring

The internet is up in arms after a review of the Ford Focus ST made a passing reference to its ‘310lb ft’ of torque without specifically saying ‘of torque’.

The author of the review has now gone into hiding, having brazenly ditched decades of automotive convention by assuming the unit alone would be enough for readers to understand what was meant.

It’s widely accepted that the humble pound-foot - sometimes also expressed in Newton metres - has a unique place in motoring lexicon because rotational forces are mind-numbingly complex and so rarely used in any other context.

Whereas speed, weight and miles per gallon are all universally understood, hence why ‘mph of speed’ and ‘kg of mass’ are deemed laughable and unnecessary.

The offending review has kickstarted a campaign to give 'of torque' and other common turns of phrase protected status, akin to those enjoyed by swans and areas of natural beauty.

Popular suggestions so far include ‘firm ride’, 'numb steering', ‘premium interior’ and ‘click these blue words’ when referring to a hyperlink.

# data.attributes.field_standfirst
Readership left flummoxed after review stipulates ‘310lb ft’ with no further explanation