Not totally sticking up for it, but engine development has come a long way since 1974, considering there's a 1000cc I3 ecoboost putting out more power than the 2.8 V6 that you mention.

I do, however, stand by my opinion that a 2.0 ecoboost would be much better suited to a Miata/BRZ sized Ford with RWD.

Look where the market is going. Every manufacturer is releasing smaller turbocharged engines. The technology has finally caught up to the needs.

Now we can have a 30+mpg car that still produces 300ish HP. My 2012 Optima SX is a good example of this done right. 274hp and I still get 35-40mpg on the highway and 23-26 around town... and my right foot can be heavy sometimes.

The 5L V8 is fantastic, but if you hand me the same car with a 3L 6cyl turbo that makes 50+ more hp... well, I'd take it.

Turbos are easy to tune and modify, keep more of their horsepower when altitude is a factor (I live in Calgary, AB which is 3,557ft above sea level, so it matters to me), and are pretty damn reliable at this point.

Adapt or die, folks. There's a reason that Saab, Pontiac, Saturn, Olds, and other brands are dead.

For those that are mentally challenged and lack the ability to have reason and logic -

"you can't get something for nothing" : there is no substitute for cubic inches in engine power, it is a thermodynamic problem and less fuel = less energy

"you can't squeeze blood from a turnip" : add as much boost as you want, material science has not become so advance as to reliably support the boost levels required to squeeze out the HP they are advertising. If that engine still runs reliably in 5 years of use, it will be luck

"a pig with makeup is still a pig" : 300 HP from a turbo 4 are not the same as 300 HP from a V8 or V6 for that matter, it is called torque.

Fan boy it as progress, as what the public wants, etc.. I call it a gimmick, and gimmicks don't stand the test of time. They are good for a few bucks, otherwise we'd have SVOs running around everywhere.

I think you insulted more women than me, but hey... who am I to judge.. I'm just another a-hole with an opinion.

I am curious how well the 2.3L turbo 4 will hold up in years to come at that ~300hp power level. Some other manufacturers have come close and seem to be doing OK.

I disagree about the no substitute for cubes & that the 300hp turbo 4 isn't the same as a V6 regarding torque (but turbo 4 to V8...no contest). Many manufacturers such as Ford, Audi and BMW are switching to smaller forced induction engines that seem to be making very similar power numbers than the bigger naturally aspirated engines they are replacing or competing with (and also better fuel mileage). Usually those engines make their peak torque down low in the rpm range compared to their naturally aspirated predecessors or similar trim level vehicles, so that they don't seem to feel like they are lacking in torque.

I agree.

If I like the 2015 enough I may grab 2, the 5.0 and the 2.3L for my DD. I want a 50th, but I don't want to run the miles up on it.

I completely agree. Sounds like a hella fine plan to me. Although I will be opting for the V8. I have a six banger now and its just NOT ENOUGH! Also, with the turbo already on the engine, I believe it may be hard to further upgrade the engine in any significant way. But hey, who knows? Can't wait for the 2015!

Haha.

A tune would free up plenty of power, especially with 'eco' being part of that turbocharged 4's name. (Factory tune will be for economy).

I know how you feel about the 4.0 V6 though!