This is all I noticed.
From what you're saying for grouping by time period, you would assume the Buick GNX and Ferrari F40 would experience similar turbo lag? They may be similar to an extent, but so are a house cat and a mountain lion. They would have to map throttle plots for each stock turbo, then individual upgrades for each car or you'll end up with the cookie-cutter plot like they do with race exhaust on so many cars.
I'm saying there's a right way, then the way PD would do it, and then there's ways that might be worse than not having it at all. You'd prefer to settle for PD's way of sliding by and doing sub-par work on the "best" driving simulator on the market? I didn't come here to argue over something I care very little about, so I've said my words and I'll go, but I fully believe this topic should be expanded upon into a poll to see how many people want realistic turbo lag integrated in GT6 or GT7.
The best sim on the market doesn't use constant grip multiplier tires or not know how to handle camber and doesn't lack qualification. A constant hard coded turbo lag with maybe a couple of different values for particular cars/types of cars fits in with the level of sim that GT is offering right now and I think it would be nice to have a rather significant aspect of turbo engines modeled at last (that last part being opinion). But with how long it took them to do some things (like even look at aero) all there really is to do is hope.
As long as we define realism, which comes in a gradient. The point is
I doubt that to a high degree. There are many solutions for putting lag in the game. I'd like to see PD model turbines and have thermodynamic engine models driving those turbines, but I feel that even a constant bit of lag would add a bit to the sim. At the very least address the discrepancy between the Stage III turbo kit and the game itself if they don't want to bother replicating lag on stock cars.
I'm sure it could be implicated but needing to individually model each cars motor response, even in a rough form, is massively time consuming and expensive. Unfortunate as it is, the days of big budget games making big profits are over so no one is prepared to keep throwing money at something that isn't strictly broken.
They're already "modeling" engine response in the form of some fudged inertia factor, which will be translated from manufacturer data or guessed for those it is not available for. The work needs to be done anyway, per car, why not do it in a way that is more expressive and, hence, entertaining?
Time and money, that's all it comes down to in the end. The basic engine modelling is the same across all the cars from your dihatsu midgets to your veyrons, just using different data points to define power curves and output, its done this way because its quick, easy and fairly bug free. If you start having to programme every engine individually then it becomes the opposite, slow, buggy and problematic.
The same advanced model could be used for all cars, also, and the development processes would be the same and have the same level of sensitivity to mistakes (actually, it'd be less sensitive to any one parameter being wrong, but the frequency would be increased in line with the increase in the number of parameters - balance).
The kind of things we're talking about have been done on hardware older than PS3. The PS3 is more than sufficient to model a car to a much higher degree than what is available in GT right now. That's practically a given. There's an issue in stuffing such a car into a game, but again it's not a matter of impracticality so much as a matter of tradeoffs.
Development, implementation and testing are all massive tasks that take years to finalise, balance this against the potential increased sales to people who actually care about this sort of thing and it becomes painfully obvious that it isn't worth it.
