I own a TR182 (Cessna Turbo Skylane RG) and I wouldn't recommend it to people operating out of a grass strip. I know there are pilots that do this and claim to not have any issues but the landing gear with its very small tires cannot be compared to the fixed gear Cessnas. Uneven surfaces put stress on the pivot assembly which is known to crack -- costs $25,000 plus labor per leg.
However, I strongly disagree that the turbo version does not provide any advantages over the normally aspirated R182. First of all, it's turbo-normalized, i.e. the max MP is the same as with the non turbocharged and therefore the turbocharging does not put the typical extra stress on the engine. It doesn't add much weight either and it is manually controlled through a wastegate, letting you decide whether and by how much to turbocharge the engine. If you do a little bit more than flatland low level cruising, the turbocharger greatly increases your capabilities and safety. I like flying in the Alps and 1100fpm after takeoff is a lot safer than 500fpm. I would not want to go back to a normally aspirated airplane.