I've lately seen a lot of Facebook posts comparing preferred vehicles against those deemed inferior in automotive groups. One had a photograph of a bunch of JDM cars that look like they've been fitted with a lot of aftermarket parts, and another photograph of a bunch of large pickup trucks that were all lifted, with captions declaring the cars were for boys and the trucks were for men. Another had a man posing next to a V8 engine with a caption along the lines of "if your engine needs a turbo you didn't build a good engine".
These sorts of ideologies aren't held universally, but rather by certain demographics. These people prefer simpler, more basic automotive designs, perhaps viewing them as more pure and less expensive. It brings to mind the old saying that "there's no replacement for displacement".
I'm reminded of something I once read about Enzo Ferrari. I don't know if it's true, but he was credited for saying that "Aerodynamics are for people that can't build engines." That may have been a compelling argument in 1960, when race cars, especially in the F1 scene, were about sleek, low-drag, streamlined, light cars fitted with lots of power. Since then, however, people learned that air can be more than just in your way. Race car designers found that they could put air to work for them to improve aspects of performance other than top speed. All fast cars have to slow down for turns, but we learned that aerodynamics can help take those turns at higher speeds, which means faster laps. No longer would a powerful engine be enough to be competitive on the track.
Similarly, a lot has changed under the hood over the past several decades. Cars both on and off the track have been steering towards more efficient engines, using less fuel to still produce equal or greater power than would have been possible with bigger, thirstier engines in the past. Once upon a time, a massive four, five, or six-liter engine would get a couple-hundred horsepower or so, and consume fuel like it was being poured on the ground. Since then, better engines and more complex power unit designs have dramatically slashed engine sizes and fuel consumption while still producing hundreds of horsepower.
As an example, a NASCAR Cup car, as of the time of this writing, has a 5.86-liter V8 that produces 670 horsepower. That may sound like a lot. When one then sees that a Formula 1 engine is only 1.6 liters, fans of huge engines might be expected to have a laugh and expect piddly amounts of power. However, that 1.6-liter V6 can produce 1,000 horsepower. That's 149% of the stock car's power from 27% of the NASCAR engine. That's a massive performance difference per volume. Additionally, while both use a tremendous amount of fuel during a race, even with the higher performance the F1 engine is still slightly better on fuel mileage. From what I've read, NASCAR sees 2 to 5 MPG during a race, whereas F1 is more like 7 MPG, despite producing almost 50% more horsepower.
Alright, but the F1 car is a lot more expensive, right? Sure it is. A chainsaw is a lot more expensive than an ax. Both can cut down a tree or chop it up into firewood, but the more complicated and more expensive chainsaw is better, faster, and more efficient at it. Can the NASCAR Cup car get you around a race track quickly? Sure, but not nearly as quickly as the more expensive F1 car, which would lap it every few laps. F1 cars are so expensive because "good enough" isn't good enough. In addition to lapping much faster, the F1 car can pit less frequently. An F1 race is a bit under 200 miles, and they run the entire thing without refueling. NASCAR can't run 200 miles on a single tank of gas in a race, so in addition to the slower lap pace it would need to lose more time in the pits refueling.
The point, however, isn't which costs more or laps faster or how much performance you get for your dollar, but that there is absolutely plenty of room to replace displacement.