<< No, that engine is 3.8L. >>
Ack! My bad!
<< Not necessarily. A turbocharged car can have ZERO turbo lag if that's how it's designed. The McLaren-designed Turbo 3.1L in the '89-90 Pontiac Grand Prix had ZERO turbo lag. That's due to the car using a tiny T-25 turbocharger on a V6 engine. The tiny V6 is fully spooled up at just above idle RPM. Granted, this reduces the available top-end boost so the cars are only capable of a high 13-second 1/4-mile on the stock turbocharger. However, there are ways around this like progressive twin turbos, etc. In fact, I believe that's how many twin-turbo cars are designed - a smaller turbo that spools up quickly for lower RPM, and a larger turbo for more boost at higher RPM.
Turbos are probably not used often on the average family car because they are higher-maintennance (in terms of requiring a warm-up and idle-down) and costly repair items. Most consumers who want basic transportation wouldn't want to deal with that. >>
Good points. I still argue that the main reason japanese companies bolt on turbos is because they are taxed based on engine size.
Those turbo grand prix's were pretty sweet. Although I'd much rather have a 2002 supercharged GTP.
I remember reading that the Ferrari F40 (twin turbos) had the problem of trying to control it through a turn when the boost kicks in. They say the F50 is easier to drive now that it's NA instead of turbo.