I agree with the importance of torque and a good powerband over peak horsepower numbers, but you're talking about two different things when talking about a sports car and a V8 and then this 2.7L engine in the vehicles Toyota is putting it in.
A sports car is lightweight, and the fact that you already have a big V8 with excessive displacement means you don't have to worry about top-end power on the engine. The fact that it's big means it's already going to have plenty of top-end power which means you can concentrate on great low-end and mid-range power which is where you're at most of the time anyways, even in a lot of racing situations.
Now look at the two vehicles this 2.7L engine is slated for, the Venza and the Highlander. Both of these are
heavy vehicles. A base FWD 4-cylinder Venza is already tipping the scales at 3800 lbs, the Highlander is even heavier. Given the weight classification alone, 2.7L is no longer "excessive" displacement. And since the engine is relatively small, you
must still concentrate on top-end power development because you're not going to have enough power available down low or even into the mid-range in higher power demand but still common everyday (and not unusual) situations.
(A quick aside. Yes a larger bore oversquare engine does fundamentally favor top-end more, and a longer stroke undersquare engine does favor low-end torque more, but most grocery getter or even higher performance engines for that matter are never pushed nearly hard enough or developed to an advanced enough state where you're really see a huge difference from this. The old 3.0L Nissan VQ engine was very oversquare yet still produced great low-end torque via an appropriate set of cams, intake manifold and port design. And then Honda does make a 2.4L "super stroker" undersquare 4-cylinder with 205hp @ 6800rpm in the Acura TSX. All you're doing is balancing the different components that go into an engine and the various ways you can design them against each other to get whatever output characteristics you want. You don't truly start to see the difference between oversquare or undersquare until you get into racing engine designs.
)
Our Highlander is about 3900 lbs with AWD and a V6, the older 3.0L. It performs OK and that's it. I was excited because I thought with the Venza you'd be able to drop the V6 and save 200 lbs and drop the AWD if you can get by without it and lose another 200 lbs and come out with a pretty spacious FWD sedan/wagon/"thing" at 3500 lbs and have respectable performance with a BEEFY 4-cylinder. But nope! Looks like Toyota already used the 200 lbs they saved from being able to stuff a 4-cylinder in there and porked the car up elsewhere! I hate that!
So despite being a "torquey" 4-cylinder, you're still going to have to push the thing pretty hard, and given the super hail mary stroke it's likely to have very bad NVH characteristics unless Toyota really did go all out as far as taking care of this. If not it'll sound and feel like crap.
I'd love to see the 2.7L in a car like the Camry at about 3300-3400 lbs. The engine power wise literally would be as good as a V6 while still giving better handling with a lighter engine over the front wheels. And since now you have a pretty light vehicle on your side, you won't need to push the engine as hard as you would in a Venza or Highlander. Maybe you don't need more than 3000 or 4000rpm on a daily or weekly basis and have all the power you need without exceeding that, in which case the majority of nasty noises and NVH that large displacement 4-cylinders can make is not nearly as much of an issue. (Conspiracy theory alert). I doubt that will happen though, because people might be pleased enough with the 4-cylinder that they'd skip the V6 and Toyota would lose the opportunity to make a bundle more money on the bigger engine. If the base engine is enough, it's a difficult sell on an optional one. Such is marketing.
Anyways I'm really anal about the sound and feel of engines. Some people aren't and might not care, in which case the 2.7L will be great either way. You can't argue with "nearly" V6 performance while still retaining 4-cylinder like fuel economy. I still hope Toyota really went all-out on the NVH issues on this thing though, and that they bring it to the smaller and lighter weight cars like the RAV4 and Camry.
Between a 2.7L super-stroker 4-cylinder and something like the 4GR-FSE 2.5L V6 in the Lexus IS250, I'd go for the small V-6 in the case of the Venza or a Highlander. If you're going to have to wind something out a lot due to having a smallish engine in a heavier vehcile, it might as well sound and feel pretty good while doing so. V6 engines are already much better balance and NVH wise than 4-cylinders, and since you've got 6-cylinders to play with vs 4, you don't have to super stroke each one to get the displacement you need. The 2.5L V6 has a tiny little 77mm (3.03in) stroke and the resulting low piston speeds will let it happily rev to 4, 5, or even 6000rpm and beyond without breaking a sweat or sounding like it's straining itself in the least bit. If Toyota doesn't take care of the NVH on the 2.7L well, it'll sound like it's straining and laboring big time even at 3000 rpm.
Like usual I'm in the middle and slipping through the cracks of what the manufacturers offer. On one hand there's people who are never satisfied and that's what the 269hp 3.5L V6 is for. I have no idea what to do with 269hp in this vehicle and am rarely if ever above even 4000rpm. I can't even get to peak torque most of the time. Yes, I'd much rather have maybe 10 lb-ft more torque at 1000 lower rpms, even if it cost me 10-20hp up top. I'm never up there anyways. It'd drive more like the Nissan VQs which I still love.
OTOH, the base 4-cylinders aren't enough for me and sound and feel bad to my overly sensitive ears. There's no middle ground. I see the potential in this 2.7L (conditionally, if Toyota went all out on taking care of NVH), but unfortunately we're not going to see it if all they put it in is 4000 lb beasts where it's already going to be underpowered.
Sorta like when BMW came out with their Double VANOS 3.0L I-6 in the 5000 lb X5, but you knew they were going to put it in the 3-series before long and they did. And how Acura has a sweet little turbocharged 2.2L 4-cylinder, but only in the 4000 lb RDX. Let's see what it can do in the much smaller and lighter TSX already! I know more than a few TSX fans who were enormously disappointed when the redesigned TSX came out with pretty much a carry-over engine from the last generation and no turbo.
