One ride in an Audi 2.7TT with the APR Stage 3 kit convinced me. Of course, upkeep is another issue altogether...

i think with the new CAFE standards .. we may have to start changing our opioions of what a muscle car is.. A high HP V6 may become what a V8 is today.. sad but it may be true.. :(

I would buy a 4 cyl muscle car if available... the number of cyl is non important.. it is the driving pleasure that counts.

As I said before, torque is a huge part of a muscle car. It's the tire-shredding hoonage potential that attracts a lot of people to this segment. If the V6 can offer similar torque, sure I'd take it. But excluding forced induction on a smaller motor, there is no replacement for displacement.

Don't forget the original Mercedes 300SL Gullwing was powered by a slant 6 and could do around 150mph back in the mid-fifties.

especially if its turbocharged.

Buy, Hell I've built a couple of V6 musclecars.

Buick was pretty good at it too ... choose off a Grand National sometime ...

Inline six yes, V6, absolutely no way. I hate how V6's sound.

I'd consider 4's and 6's(inline or vees) because with the weight of today's and the projected future's v-8" muscle cars approaching and sometimes surpassing 2 tons and with todays gas over $3.25 in most areas....why not ? Bolt on a intercooled turbo or a supercharger kit and you can get more than the performance of the V-8...plus, you get better mileage and you save weight. The insurance rates are lower and imagine the look on the person next to you when or if they find out that all you had under the hood was a 4 or 6 cylinder ! Peace.

Um, no. Muscle needs 8 cylinders ('cept for the Buick). V6 "muscle cars" are for middle-aged women and wannabe kids.

I'd only buy a V6 if it was strapped to the right car. Porsche makes flat sixes, and BMW does the inline thing, so the only V6 car left that I'd really car about is the G37 Coupe.

Where are all the 6 cylinder sports cars?

This is something I don't quite get, but maybe sort of do. A company will field a V8 car with a lot of power, something like the Charger R/T, relying on it's halo effect and high MSRP to turn at least some profit. Then, the same company will make a 4 cylinder sports car, like a hot turbo hatch, because it is cheap to do since the platform is offset by sales of the economy version of the same car (Caliber SRT).

But so rare there is something in between. It's like a place where they can't make it cheap like the 4 cylinder car, but they are afraid to make it expensive because it doesn't have the cache of the 8 cylinder car.

Myself, I think a twin turbo 2010 Camaro V6 would be pretty sweet.

You have to have a V8. V6's can be better, but, V8's are just. Better.

I have no problem with a V6 muscle car, as long as the HP and torque are there, along with a nice mellow sound. The VQ is a great example of torque and fuel economy together, and can sound pretty good. On the other hand, I rented a V6 Mustang the other day and have to say that was one of the worst engines I've experienced in a car.

I'd consider getting a new Camaro with the direct injection 4 cylinder turbo. It would be fun.

Like you said, not everyone needs a V8. I've had plenty of fun in a V6 Mustang.

It's not how big your muscle is ... it's how you use it.

"Never say never" and whatnot, but it would take a miracle.

absolutely, i actually have. i own an '88 supra turbo. 3.0L Inline 6, more power than the camaros and mustangs of the same year.

depending on how the new genesis coupe looks in person (in black) and how it drives, that will most likely be my next car. if i ca afford it, the other possibility will be the bmw 128i/135i.

4 cyl turbos have so much more tuning potential. I'd always want to have at least the option of building up my vehicle the way I like it.
Oh, and the B5 S4 -type engine Ash's talking about is way torquier than the current range of high-revving V8s you get in the RS4 or new M3.

Having said that, I don't think the V6's are muscle cars. Muscle isn't just performance, it's also show-off. Think Muscle Beach, rather than the Olympics. The V8 badge, the feeling of being pushed back in your seat immediately from idle, the rumble like a bowling ball caught in an industrial dryer, the inadvertent smoke show; you gotta have 'em all. Ever listened to a 350Z's V6 hum? Muscly? Nah.

I was just in the new GT-R though, and even though it's a TT V6, it does have the feel and appearance of a Muscle Car. It's huge, it kicks sand in the face of those girly-mahn 911s, and it doesn't drone like the Z or G35. One of those, I would buy.

Just wait till the question is, would you drive a diesel muscle car.

Sure.

If there were more V6's like the infamous 4.3L Vortec V6. For it's day, 245 fl lb at 2500 rpm was pretty nice. Now, you bump that HP into the 300s by way of a slightly better cam, and massaging those heads, and torque would be off the chain, easily touching on V8 levels.

+ Watch video

^Smell my burnt rubber.

Until then, if it's from 'murika, and it's a "muscle car", V8 and don't negate!

Muscle cars aren't about compromise. They're about performance. If you want to sacrifice your manhood to save a couple pennies then go get a 'sporty commuter'. But DON'T call it a muscle car.

The musclecars of tomorrow will be measured in terms of amperage and kilowatts.

V6...Muscle? This does not compute

everyone's talking about subarus and audis and porsches. I think the argument here is semantic in nature. Is a V6 a viable engine in a performance car? Hell yes. You can make a V6 have the same numbers a V8's got with the right parts. But the reasons to do this, lighter weight, better fuel economy, belie the whole point of a muscle car.

I say, if you want to put V6s in Mustangs and Challengers go ahead, but call them Sports Cars or Performance Cars, not Muscle Cars.

I would take a turbo 4 over any v6 or v8. As much as I love and miss the sound of a v8 I was able to put a lot of people driving v6 and v8's to shame when I had a turbo 4.

V8 engines have a lot of weight and are very poor at maximizing the amount of output vs their weight, not to mention it adds to the curb weight.

I did enjoy the grunting low-end power smoothness of the 225 slant six. And the leaking spark plug wells kept the low distributer water-proofed enough to drive through a flood. From a physics perspective, an inline 6 is smoother than any V-8. It takes a V12 to match it.

I also understand there are many lovers of the 4.0L Jeep inline 6. Where are you guys?

Yes, muscle cars need a V8 to be a muscle car. And gold chains. And pick-up like handling.

Come on. Muscle is muscle. A V6 can give you that with better handling and mileage.

They do need to work on the sound though. Not enough companies tune their V6s to sound sexy.

A V8 is perfect for straight line acceleration, but a turbo 4 or supercharged V6 in a smaller, more compact platform is probably better when the road gets twisty. I guess for a Muscle Car, I'd rather have a V8, but overall, I'd rather have something that goes around corners almost as fast as it does a straight line.

It can be done...

Certainly V6's and fours installed in sporty coupes sell. Several were mentioned above. But a sporty coupe does not a muscle car make. It's not just about form factor but about style, image and street status in a uniquely American mix.

There is no way a Hyundai or Porsche could ever be a muscle car. Their brand images simply do not mix with the traditional definition.

Unless we are redefining the term, and the image that goes with it, a muscle car can only be an American performance car with a V8 engine (rare exceptions notwithstanding).

I think by definition a Muscle car has a V8. I think the real question is can a a car with a V6 be called a muscle car?

Inline 6 > V6

A V6 is OK, if it gets the job done. My warmed up V6 Pontiac is pretty quick. It sounds like a Corvair.
I like the smoothness and the sound of an inline six better.
But wouldn't it be nice if someone made an affordable [think Miata, base Corvette] car with a small, say, 3.0 liter, V-12?
Now THATS the sound of music!

A V8 is part of the muscle car vibe, largely because of tradition, but also the sound and torque that they provide. A V6 isn't a traditional muscle car feature, nor will it ever deliver that sound. With forced induction it could certainly produce the requisite torque.

I think an inline-six would be more desirable in a muscle car (especially with forced induction), as they sound great and could also deliver the torque in an appropriate state of tune. Additionally, US car makers offered inline-sixes during the muscle car era, so there is some heritage there, even if the sixes were historically the 'economy' models.

I know I'll get lambasted for this, but turbodiesel engines would make sense in muscle cars; you'd get a gutsy sound and masses of torque out of them.

Inline-fives might be another option. An oft-overlooked engine type, the five sounds fantastic, runs more smoothly than a four and offers more power, yet it is more compact than a six.

Just look back 10 years...the V6 family sedan of now is making the same or more horsepower that was very respectable from a V8 in the late 90's. Nissan has proven time and again with the Z family that a six-cylinder engine is beyond capable. At this point in my life, I don't know that I'll buy another vehicle with more than six-cylinders...though since I work for an oil company I'm obligated to encourage the rest of you to hoon your asses off in the name of job security.

Raw horsepower is only good for e-bragging and magazine articles. Horsepower to weight ratio and how the power is transferred to where rubber meets road is what's important. For example, the GT-R is heavy, puts out less HP than the competition, but is faster on the track. For years, decades, we've been brainwashed into thinking a performance car has to have gobs of power, suck a bunch of gas. Coming from an engineering and advertising background, I know it is just not true. When there is a will, there is a way. Right now, most in the car business don't have the will.

@Uncle_Bo:
You say " unless we are redefining the term..." i think in our day and age we have begun to and need to continue to redefine what a muscle car is. in a lot of ways it is similar to the concept of the crossover vehicle. many people who were all about hardcore, truck based suvs, are now switching to crossovers because of their better practicality, usability, and efficiency by comparison. many "suvs" are in fact crossovers that the car company continues to call an suv.

i think the same will become true for muscle cars. the issue has become that so often sports/performance cars end up putting so much pressure on muscle cars to handle better, be lighter and more responsive, and more efficient, that the true muscle car is on it's way out IMO, and we will be left with the sports/performance cars only.

I'd take a screaming turbo I6 over a V8 but I agree it doesn't really embody "muscle car". I think a muscle car is necessarily a big rwd retro V8 American car.

How about a Diesel V6 muscle car?

(Sure, but only if it handles poorly.)

Well between my friends old 800hp Grand National that I got to drive, or a friend's 700hp Supra... Yes, Yes I would, but it sure as hell better have a turbo the size of a small baby in there.

Given rising fuel costs, overall savings and the improvement of V6's would you buy a V6 muscle car?

What a stupid question. Do the math:

$37,320 = Dodge Challenger MSRP

15,000 miles driven a year

Average fuel economy of 20 mpg since you'll stomp on it.

15,000 miles / 20 mpg = 750 gallons a year

750 gallons * $3.50 a gallon = $2625 a year.

If you can afford a $37,000 car, you can afford $2600 a year in gas.

Why not fit a turbo I4 while at it?

And yes I know, the Supra isn't a V6, but it's a 6 cylinder none the less.

My V6 Supercharged bonneville can be rather fun at times.

If you ask 'define a muscle-car' to a vast majority of anyone from any generation and they will almost instantly first think that a V8 will need to be the powerplant. You can thank American history for that.

Is it possible to take the same car, but with a different drivetrain, and make it perform as good or better than the V8 version? Yes. But would people call it a muscle-car?

To be honest, I'd say definitely. But most likely only in instances when the car itself is something that has the 'muscle-car heritage,' such as a Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Challenger, GTO, Javelin, etc. (and their international counterparts).

Would I scoff at a muscle-car that has an engine other than a V8? Hell no.

Does my '65 Mustang with a 200 I6 get called a muscle-car even after people hear that it has a made-for-women-going-5-miles-to-and-from-the-grocery-store engine? All the time. But perhaps a long-tube, dual-outlet header, 2" mandrel-bent straight pipes into 26" Smithys and 3" tips will do that when mixed in with a variety of other appearances.

My only gripe?
Quit using damn V6s as entry-level powerplants on the American companies' 'performance potential models' and bring back the tried and true I6s!

Don't assume all V6s are low torque. My minivan, yes, minivan, will spin the tires on dry pavement from any traffic light. It's got 173K miles on it, I believe it's bone stock (I got it used, but come on, it's a friggen minivan!), naturally aspirated, and I giggle like a school-girl every time I do it! I can haul 7 people, and I'm willing to lay good money that it stops & corners better than any 60s American Muscle Car.

No, I'm not really sure that there was a point in me telling you all this - I just giggle every time I think about burnouts in a FWD minivan fer cryin' out loud!

The V8 is becoming what V12, V16s, and giant straight-8s were before WWII: an extravagence. V6s (and boosted 4-, 5-, and 6-pots) are the new V8. 30-40 years back, a V8 was required for adequate power, particularly for larger cars. Now many would argue a V6 is plenty powerful for most applications.

However, to answer the question, no. Sports car? Sure, any kind of powerplant is great as long as it's fun, but a "muscle car" has a specific formula to it. It's not a "sports car". As the V8 engine falls out of favor, so does the "muscle car." They are quite conjoined.

muscle car is just a power to weight ratio.

besides, ever driven a lotus exige? 4 banger, and more power than your teeth can contain.

look at the old toyota Supra (gen 4) which had 300 horses on a turbo v6 and could easily be turned into 400+. or the 300Z TT.

i would happily call those muscle cars.

To tell you the truth, I dont really care how many cylinders a car has, only about handling characteristc and driveability (GTI anyone?) But to be truly DEFINED as a "Muscle Car," one would belive it would need a V8. It dosen't mean that thoes with lesser cylinders are lesser cars, although those in your V6 econo-Chargers are really pushing your luck, but just arent muscle cars.

The definition of muscle cars says "A muscle car is an automobile with a high horse power engine, modest weight, capable of producing high levels of acceleration," which is true and all, but is a Ferrari a muscle car? I think not. Its all about the attitude, demeanor, the inability to go around corners at a moderate rate of speed, and pure tire-buring, torque monsters.

As the owner of a boosted Z31 300ZX I heartily agree that V6 power, especially when turbocharged, is more than sufficient. I very much enjoy my fuel economy of low 20mpg (combined) and ~5 sec 0-60 sprints. The car currently has cams, exhaust, and 11psi of boost on a fresh rebuild. Everybody who has ridden in or driven the car without knowledge of what it is assumes its powered by a big honkin' V8.

tl;dr Instant torque is nice, but I can wait a few hundred RPMs for mine (not a fan of boosted 4's though... that's too long to wait :-)

id buy one, for my wife.

V6 in a sportscar? Absolutely.
V6 in a muscle car? Absolutely not.

@turbodan: But the 300ZTT is not really a muscle car: it's a sports car.

Muscle cars hand out noogies, your 300Z knows karate.

Power is power, V6s arent bad. The base Mustang V6 is just as fast as the GTs V8 of 10 years ago.

I prefer V8s myself, but a V6 can get the job done.

I think the V-6 should be forced induction. As a matter of fact I have owned a couple: '81 Buick Regal Turbo Coupe (Malaise Muscle), and a '92 T-Bird S/C 5 speed. The Buick was good for its era. The T-Bird was a great stealth cruiser.

I agree nothing beats the sound of a V-8. My personal conclusion, ist hat for an engine to sound GOOD it needs to have an even number of cylinders per bank. This would include: I-4, I-6, V-8, V-12. As cool as a Viper is, it just sounds like two old Audis with bad mufflers.

I'm debating this very issue, regarding my need to get a new summer fun car. I'm considering the V6 Mustang as it's a bit cheaper than the GT and will get better mileage. I have never owned a car with more than 6 cylinders. I've owned 3 cars with turbocharged 4's, so I think I'd be content driving around with "only" 6.

Of course, there's also a classic car with a 351 V8 that's been calling my name like a siren's song, hence the debate.

So the general opinion is!

V6s now are as good as outdated V8 10 years ago.

Awesome.

This is why V6 ftl in terms of a Muscle car. For those who say V8's aren't worth their weight, go see the 700hp Ultima GTR. All motor small-block chevy, in a street legal car that shatters records held by Bugatti's Vyron.

The Corvette's all aluminum LS7. Find me another stock motor that puts out 500hp in the same size space the LS7 takes up. Sorry, Lambo's 500hp V10 is much larger. Less torque to boot.