no motor will make it's power instantly like your NA dyno chart, so it's hard to explain
My chart isn't an exact representation (it's made in MSpaint). But you do agree with the basic message, or don't you? NA engine makes power quickly when you press on the gas. A turbo needs to spool up when you press on the gas. This is true no matter where you are in the rev range. That's what the graphs say.
however, looking at the original mustang dyno, from 2300-2800 rpm is where the turbo is spooling up this would be the area where you would see lag,
Why would it only be limited to that rev range. What if you were cruising down the high way in 1st, and then floored it. Or better yet, what if you were on a road course and holding partial throttle through the corner while holding 4800 RPM. When you punch it, you will get lag. What will happen is you'll punch the gas and get 120 hp even though the engine is rated for 160 hp. A little bit of time later, the turbo will spool up and your actual power will match the powerband. That's lag. That's why race drivers have cited it as a problem during corners. If it was just about being above X RPM, no professional driver would raise an eyebrow over lag. Not even the good amateur drivers would.
as I said before lag occurs after the turbo starts to spool but before it's hits it's efficiency,
Agreed, which is why the issue isn't about RPM. Any time you let the turbo wind down, it needs to spool up again. So trying to tie it to RPM is pointless. You could be going along at 15,000 RPM, if you're turbo is idling, it's going to need to spool up and when it tries to, it will lag.
you can see the chart actually hits an increase in tq, goes more vertical at 2800 rpm and having worked on and driven an 85 turbo thunderbird, it hits peak boost right at 2800-3000 rpm. if it had a larger turbo on it you would be able to see the lag better, as there would be more of it.
Problem, the S2000 curve has similar behavior. At 6000 RPM there is a sudden increase in torque. It's actually more severe than what's on the Ford. It must be turbo lag, only the S2000 has no turbo.
as far as me not knowing what lag is, are you sure you even know how a turbo works, your jet turbine explanation was interestingly wrong.
Not sure how it can be, a turbine is a turbine. A Jet engine is a turbine, it does exactly what a turbo does. Common perception of a jet engine is air in, fire out. But the fire isn't what makes all the power (at least not in a turbofan). Most of the "fire" actually drives the turbine stage (turbocharger) which compresses air that is driven to the combustor (cyclinders) and drives the fan. The fuel added in the combustor drives the turbine.
In a car the air that has passed through combustion is used to drive the turbine (turbocharger) which compresses air before it goes to the cylinders.
the turbine never "stores" energy, and it never goes into the intake path, the compressor pulls in air and compresses it then it goes through the intercooler and into the intake manifold.
It most certainly stores energy. I'm not using any kind of laymans terms there. This is thermodynamics. The energy in the turbo is related to its RPM. The faster it spins, the more energy there is in it. I suppose you could argue against energy being "stored" (well I never even used that word) as it's constantly being passed from the post combustion air to the turbine to the pre-combustion air, but the turbo needs energy to turn.
That energy most certainly goes into the intake path (or intake manifold as you put it). That energy
is the extra hp from the turbo [internal energy from exhaust air to mechanical energy of turbine to internal/chemical energy of the air fuel mixture to mechanical energy of the pistons to internal energy of the exhaust gas again].
furthermore, didn't someone in this thread explain lag as the amount of time that it takes the exhaust air to go from the engine to the turbine? that isn't even close to how it works,
I said something similar to that, but I did not say that specifically. Lag is the time is takes for the exhaust air to spool up the turbo.
so how about you explain what YOU consider lag.
Done.
because so far you have indicated that you think it has to do with exhaust flow when that is not what lag is determined by,
There is more to determining
how much lag you'll find than just the exhaust flow, however the reason for lag in the first place is because the turbo is spooled indirectly by exhaust gas, unlike a supercharger which is driven directly by the engine.
as far as the lag on the gear shift, I think the game got it right,
That would only be in drag racing then, one of the big complaints about 70's-80's turbos, which was massive lag on corner exit, it completely missing. In GT5, all you need to do is make sure you take the corner at a RPM that is in a relatively flat portion of the powerband and you'll avoid any sort of surge in power to the wheels. This is completely wrong.
you said I don't know what I'm talking about
That was never even implied. I simply said that saying that you own a turbo car doesn't mean much. You own a computer too I take it. Does that mean you can write a thesis on the feasibility of a quantum computer within the next decade?
Not quite sure anyone has provided any evidence of that, but I'm listening.
and it even have turbo over boost which heated up the engine and causing loss of power ... not even GT5 can beat that 
Play that, then play GT5, there is a difference in how turbo lag simulated.
I often have to do rolling launch from 80kmh on 2nd gear, the Monster Machine has long gearing for top speed over 370+kmh. 2nd gear could reach just over 160kmh.
