I posted my info to show 1 way without having mega cubes forcing 2x the air in an iron head port with stock cubes.My cr is about 17/1 with boost so I use 110 fuel where the big cub/stroke will have pump fuel a lot of times and a long stroke.Thank you for letting me play.

The question I have is does that make it a better choice for a bracket or Super category car?

Im in the process of building one currently to run brackets but mainly .90 racing. I have done .90 stuff with a flat torque curve and a peaky engine. Cant say one is definitively better than the other. But this time I am building a bigger engine than the last time I went .90 racing. So we shall see. Illpost the results of this engine compared to the last one that was more "peaky"

I wish I knew how to post pictures. My 605 Street Hemi's torque curve goes 750 ftlbs@3400 and climbs to 818@4818 and holds 750+ to 5900.

I believe the longer tq avg is more forgiving on the shift point

My 470 dry sump engine had a big notch in the torque curve. The more we modified that engine to make peak power the bigger the notch in the torque curve got. Never worried about it much since the goal with that project was peak power but it was interesting.

On the flip side, we were testing a 498 inch BB Chevy today and it had a nice shallow dome type of torque curve and the power curve looked great with a nice smooth slope and then it held flat right at 800 hp for almost 1000 rpm. So that guy is going to be able to pull half way down the track behind a big flat power curve. I've never seen a BB Mopar with standard port, or MW ports build a curve like that. My guess is that it has something to do with the size of the port but I don't know for sure. There isn't anything else between the two engines that is super different other than the cylinder heads.

the longer tq avg is more forgiving on the shift point
This^^^
More tolerant of the wrong axle, or PG