Andy, ZJ and others, I agree that a turbo is a marvelous device that can help a smaller engine respond like a larger one. In a 44,000 lb machine, a turbo may be the only way to deliver acceptable performance and fuel efficiency, especially if power requirements during normal usage vary considerably.
In a CUT, however, at least for now, it is a given that a naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engine can deliver the same power as a 3 cylinder turbocharged engine of only marginally smaller size and weight. Simply look at the comparably sized versions of the JD ten and twenty series machines. It is also a given that compared to naturally aspirated engines, turbocharged engines are susceptible to a few additional reliability and maintenance issues.
Under these circumstances, I believe that a manufacturer that intends to charge its customers more for the privilege of owning a turbocharged engine needs to explain why it benefits the buyer to pay for one and maintain it. High altitude performance, fuel economy and size/weight advantages are the only potential advantages that seem to make sense at the moment, but JD (at least) isn't even attempting to claim any of them. The fact that a turbo can boost a small engine's power output is only relevant if it translates into one or more of these other advantages. If it doesn't in a CUT, then logic would dictate choosing a non-turbocharged engine of the same power output (and roughly the same size and weight), and saving money while minimizing reliability/maintenance concerns.
