Is there much point in arguing whether one configuration of engine is better than another? The engine is after all only part of a package of elements that make up a car – the others being suspension, steering, brakes, the weight, and the use intended for the car.
Car performance in a straight line boils down to power to weight ratio, and around corners depends on lightness (lack of weight). In the States a lot of emphasis is put on acceleration in a straight line – 0 to 60 times and ¼ mile times are trotted out to prove how “good” a car or engine is. Indeed in a land where there are large open spaces and the roads are mostly straight, acceleration can become the dominating aspect of a cars design. Great results can indeed be achieved by increasing engine size, but this inevitably increases weight and reduces the cars handling ability.
The trouble is that handling is much harder to define in hard numbers – it is something that gives a car it's feel and character. The way a car rides, brakes and corners is much more subjective. It is this ability to handle that can be enhanced by a light powerful 4 pot engine.
In Europe – Britain especially as a land of smaller spaces, amazing winding roads - the way a car handles is given a lot of importance. A car can be very satisfying to drive on a challenging windy road without being dragstrip fast. Fine examples the search for road legal optimum handling are the Caterham Seven with the more refined Fisher Fury not far off the pace. Nearly all of these cars are built with 4 pot engines ( many Zetec) with the more extreme examples using high power motorcycle engines complete with their sequential gearboxes. A V8 would just be counterproductive for the handling and is rarely used.
The Zetec in a Mondeo or Contour body certainly is never going to be the fastest car on the road, but I found the last Mondeo I drove to be a fine handling car when you consider what range of uses it was designed for. And adding tuning mods is great fun.
A V6 or V8 isn't always the best solution.
