Power on paper* and power to the road are often very different. While I agree in principle, I'd have to drive your 2-cylinder juggernaut before I believed it.
*most often the only thing published is peak power at RPM. This alone is almost meaningless. I wish someone could come up with a "power under the curve" formula that would give a more meaningful number. I became aware of this phenomenon the first time I had the opportunity to drive a Ferrari. I stalled the thing umpteen times because it was more gutless than a 6-year-old girl* at what seemed to me to be normal take-off RPMs. And it was. Because the torque curve was more like the HP curve of a "normal" American Iron engine. Fact is, the engine was founded on a race situation, where you are always within 1000 RPM or so of max HP. Not the way normal people drive on the street.
I realize this kind of representative number would be complicated by the power band, min/max RPM etc, but I can imagine a rating that would have 2 parts - power band width as a percentage of max RPM and power under the curve. Probably a lot more complicated that it seems at face value or someone a lot smarter than me would have already come up with it but it's one thing I constantly think of when I see max power/HP readings.
Oh, but give me a V8 any day. Or a V12 if I can afford it (not yet). Call me shallow but sound means a lot to me. The only 6 that sounds good is a Flat six, like the one in my Porsche. But that's the totally wrong configuration for a front engine truck. Maybe it could fit under the bed, hmmmm...