Kevin,

Notice I didn't say anything about only getting a MBC and raising the pressure a couple PSI. I was talking in general about a modified engine, built for power. A ported head, taller cam, 3" turbo-back exhaust, larger turbo, etc. That Turbo 2.6 can make 350+hp if you so desire, I've seen it before in a Starion with a factory block and head (IIRC, the dyno showed 379 to the rear wheels, or roughly 447 hp at the crank). This most certainly brings the powerband into the "not worth-while" area for everyday driving and off-roading.

Granted, very few (if any) people on this board want to go that route, and build an uber high-HP/TQ Raider, but if I were to go through the trouble of an engine swap, I'd "go big or go home" as the saying goes. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I also remember seeing a Suzuki Samurai w/ a 3-Rotor Mazda engine at a dragstrip in Puerto Rico...IIRC that Samurai ran 11-second quarter miles! Again, this has little to no use off-road, but man, it sure would be fun to surprise the heck outta people light to light in a stock-looking Montero packing a 3.3L Supercharged/Intercooled beast, or a stock-looking Raider with a 2.6L Turbo tuned to 18psi! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

Anywho...yes, the powerband itself on a stock 2.6L Turbo would be fine for rock crawling. My personal issue with it is the throttle response and feel; I'd rather have the crisp response of a well-tuned N/A for dirt and rocks. This is doubly true if it had a manual trans.

On the open highway, however...the turbo would do me just fine. I'm actually shopping for a turbocharged car at the moment for my next "project." A Volvo wagon. Can you say "sleeper?" <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/evil.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />