My knowlege & experience is limited compared to many here, but I had an experience with an engine I owned in the past that relates to this question.
When I first got my 396 back in the day, it was a stock 350hp chevelle engine with 10.25cr, stock 214/218, 461/480, 115lsa cam, stock iron high rise 'Holley' intake and stock exhaust manifolds. I put it in a 2wd 69 chev pickup with a th400 and 3.73 gears, and ran it on propane. It didn't last long because the exhaust valves recessed, but before that happened I loved the way that engine ran. I liked to play with this impressive 'torque surge' thing it would do. You could really feel it when you drove away from a stop light normally then right after the 1-2 upshift added another 1/4 to 1/3 throttle. The rpm was no more than 2000-2500, but I remember vividly how it would press you really hard back in the seat! Torque to weight ratio is what I was feeling, but here's the point : that engine was making plenty torque for the job at a fairly low rpm with oval ports that were something like 250 cc. For comparison, that port volume on a 396 is like a 220 cc port on a 350 - that's hot street/racing territory, isn't it? Makes me wonder if maybe it's a mistake to place too much emphasis on the importance of needing very small ports to have enough velocity for a fun daily driver....
When the stock small chamber heads went bad, I put some 454 heads on with similar size ports, but substantially larger chambers - about 20cc bigger. The engine ran fine, but that fun torque surge went away with that 1.5 or so points of compression loss. In other words, compression loss made a big, very noticeable difference in low rpm part throttle torque, but a fairly large port size had great low rpm part throttle torque when the compression was there. I never tried smaller port heads on that motor, so who knows, they may have made it even more torquey.
