Feasible.... yes, likely..... no. These are muscle cars, Camaro, vette, mustang, challenger. They're considered that because they have performance v8's aka muscle. Without that they aren't what they've always been. Ferrari, Porsche, etc...have never been muscle cars, they have always been exotic cars, doesn't really matter whats under the "hood", as long as the car is light, handles good, and will do 160mph+
The Mustang, Camaro and Challenger of the mid-1960s were originally known as "sports coupes," not "muscle cars." They weren't called muscle cars until several years later with the introduction of the S-Code Mustang with the 390, the Camaro SS 396, etc. Meanwhile, the entry-level models with six-cylinder engines were by no means muscle cars. Nor were the mid-performance level models with small V8s and 2-barrel carbs.
New and updated motors could change that in a few years but yes it does look like for the first year at least with carryover engines and exact same mpg figures it could mean it's not losing much, if any weight at all.
"The EPA says that for every 100 pounds taken out of the vehicle, the fuel economy is increased by 1-2 percent."
I think were getting a little carried away with terminology here. My point was these cars along with Camaro's, Vette's, Challenger's are your AMERICAN sports cars. Whatever you prefer to call them: muscle cars, performance coupe, etc...Have some of them always had base models with V6's...yeah, but they were known for their V8's and that is what made them popular. You can put as many and as big of turbos as you want on a V6, and it will still be a V6, no matter how much power it makes. Remember you can always put turbos on a V8 as well. There is NO replacement for displacement. I can assure you, many people including myself won't buy mustangs with v6's in them. Ford will have to follow Chevy's lead in the fuel mileage game, that would be alot better option for them than getting rid of the V8 and going to turbo 6 cylinders.
I couldn't care less how many cylinders the engine has. If I were purchasing a car solely for its performance, I would buy the one that gets on down the road quickest.
I don't think the sound of a V8 is why people buy them. Your example of the Grand National vs. the GS455 was a good one, but that same thing doesn't hold true in today's world. V8's back then aren't doing what the current V8's are doing. Plus most people buying cars based on performance alone generally aren't leaving them stock...which again proves my point that there is no replacement for displacement. Ford may very well put a 3.5L twin turbo setup into a mustang, and it may make 450hp or so, but when you have a V8 that makes 400+ n/a hp there is no comparison. Now you take that v6 with twins, it's already more or less a maxed out combo. Sure maybe you can add a tune, and some other minor bolt on's and get 500hp, but your at the limit. Now you take the v8 and add minor bolt ons and a tune and it's making 450+ N/A hp, not to mention you can always add boost (turbo,supercharger) and make 650+. Now were just discussing hp, torque is whole different ball game, and the V6 definitely can't compete. I'm not worried about the v8 going any where.
This will happen until either the cost to produce gets to high and really starts raising the price of the vehicle, and or the mpg standard gets so outrageous, then I agree they will do some sort of a hybrid type deal. JMO
The 2.5 liter four in Ken Block's rally car makes 600 horsepower and 665 pound-feet of torque. Ford RallyCross team manager Andreas Eriksson says the little engine is capable of producing 900 hp, but they have limited it to 600 because any more, and the power to weight ratio is more than any driver can manage.
Ken Blocks motor is far from stock also, so yeah I'd say 500hp on a stock v6 is pretty maxed out. Yates isn't an idiot, he knows like I know and most anyone else knows, and that's that a v6 will never match the power of a v8.
LOL, if 900 hp is possible out of a 2.5 liter four, 500 hp from a 3.5 liter V6 is nowhere near maxxed out.