I like a broad reasonably flat torque curve for street cars. Not hard to find in most modern cars. Power scales pretty well with rpm. I think of some odd cars in this regard I found not fully satisfying.
One is the early version of the Honda S2000. 10,000 rpm red line and max power that was very good for engine size. The V-tech variable valve timing however, changed and torque along with power jumped about 20% right at 6000 rpm. So it felt a little anemic below that. Which could encourage you to drive it more aggressively (and it was too fast to do that safely often). The later version was 8500 rpm redline and still had a bump around 5 or 6k rpm, but was more powerful below that range than the early S2000. So you didn't feel the need to thrash it just to keep up with econocar traffic starting off from traffic lights. Also the early version S2000 was too tail happy.
I do personally really like broad flat torque curves (e.g. turbocharged cars) for
daily driven cars. Having owned a 2001 S2000, 'AP1' (1999-2003) S2000 with the 2.0L engine that goes to
9,000 rpms for a few years, for a toy secondary car it's not as big of a deal. I honestly thought it was going to be a bigger deal that what it is. You just adjust where you shift e.g. instated of shifting at 3krpm for normal driving, you just shift at 5krpm or spirited driving instead of shifting at 4krpm you shift at 6-7krpm. I didn't even have to think about it, it just happened. I've also driven enough other S2000s to say that the differences in the engine are not that drastic, either way. The suspension changes you alluded to are a bigger deal. Yes, the early cars can definitely be a bit much for less experienced drivers, especially if people drove them on a damp/cold day. Even with my experience I definitely prefer the later cars. A 'race preped' S2000 with CR (club racer, later car) suspension is to this day one of the most balanced easy to drive at the limit cars I've ever driven. The difference in the engines and gearing is a <10% difference, noticeable but not really that huge. The suspension as well as wheel/tire and later addition of drive by wire & VSA (2006 and later) are a bigger difference for most drivers. There are also styling differences as well as getting a newer usually more expensive car VS an older and less expensive car. The later cars have a smaller glass window VS earlier plastic window, but most of them have been replaced by this point or if not are ripped and leaking (not just the window but the top itself). A previous owner to my car installed a new top with glass window. So, there are many
small differences to consider and the engine is just one of them.
I thought this site that I found was pretty cool, you can compare cars and it will even 'simulate' acceleration differences.
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/curve/2003/1129790/honda_s2000.html
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/curve/2006/1129625/honda_s2000.html
2003 on left, 2006 on right.
Car a is 2003, b is 2006
And I did a compare of HP/TQ curves since it does not directly do that.
Yellow 2003, orange 2006.
This shows almost no difference for 0-60 or 1/4 mi. times either.
https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/honda-0-60-mph-times/
The other is the goofy 1981 Turbo Trans Am. Turbocharged 4.9 liter V8. And it was redlined at 4500 rpm. So it had gobs of torque and power if you floored it, but just when its getting good, boom you run out of rpm(and boost) and either shift or the driving power isn't increasing at all. Almost the opposite of the early S2000.
I personally think the late 80s Turbo Trans Ams are more interesting, with a similar engine to the Turbo Regals/Grand Nationals.
But, I have a soft spot for those cars/engines; GNs, Turbo Reglas, LC2 engine.