I chose the SOS supercharger because I have driven turbo cars and they all have lag. Maybe the correct term is throttle lag or the delivery of the power...but I can detect the lag. My SOS supercharger with the intercooler drives like a N/A car with a bigger engine. The throttle response is not only immediate but linear. That to me is more important.
Turbo "lag" is a persistent and lingering stereotype. Sure, there were plenty of turbo super cars that had terrible lag (the original Porsche 930 Turbo is the epitome) but that doesn't mean ALL turbo cars have lag. This is especially true for the modern ones that are properly designed.
IMO, the perception of turbo lag is actually the perception of the turbo's abrupt rush of boost, causing the driver to suddenly realize, "wait a minute, that huge rush wasn't there seconds ago." It is the contrast between no boost and full boost that causes a perception of lag. It's not as though a belt-driven supercharger produces more boost earlier, it is just a more linear buildup. So without a contrast between no boost/full boost, there is not the perception that power was lacking down low. The technical reality is that a properly sized turbo will produce more boost, sooner, and more efficiently than a SC.
As for reliability, I'd say there are two categories: (1) the reliability of the FI components themselves and (2) the effect of boost on the engine's components. The second category comes down to fuel/ignition tuning and knowing the limits of the engine itself, regardless of whether you choose turbo or SC. With the first category, I don't think it's accurate to say a turbocharger is any less reliable than a mechanical supercharger. The turbo is simpler with fewer moving parts, and I suspect cheaper to replace or rebuild if it breaks.
The CTSC got its (deserved) reputation as being reliable because it was well engineered by a competent company. They built it to be safe by making the boost level conservative, and effectively dealing with the inherent problems that FI can cause. They had a decent methodology for handling the fuel/ignition tuning challenges which did not require much monkeying around by the end user. This kept the consumer from being his own worst enemy and protected Comptech's reputation. IMO, the CTSC is not the best
performing FI system, it's just the safest for a consumer who doesn't know what the hell he's doing when it comes to FI, because there is not a lot you can screw up. This might make it the best overall FI system for a lot of people.
Well-engineered turbo systems for the NSX probably haven't been around "en masse" as long as the CTSC. It seems like we're now starting to see turbo systems that have been thoroughly designed by people who stand behind their products. They provide everything needed in their "kit" so that the consumer doesn't have to engineer for themselves the parts that are missing. Like Comptech did a long time ago, they are minimizing the consumer's margin of error. This is making turbos a truly viable alternative to the CTSC.
[gets off soapbox]