A few things. You point out a number of times that an O-360 doesn't make much power, compared to a TSIO-520. But the TSIO-530 is 44.44% larger displacement, so if it makes 260 HP, it is the same power per cubic inch as an O-360 making 180 HP.
There's a few holes and gaps here (and in other areas). I'll address a few of them.
I'm not sure which TSIO-520 you're talking about here and in what aircraft (I'll assume your TSIO-530 reference is a typo). The only one I'm aware of under 285 HP is the TSIO-520 in the Cessna T303 (I believe rated at 250 HP), which you shouldn't use as a basis of comparison as that had a lot of "lightweight" differences from a normal 520, and was a weaker engine as a result.
But regardless, there's more to it than simply HP/cubic inch. Turbocharged horsepower is harder on an engine than naturally aspirated horsepower. The horsepower is measured at the crankshaft (as in total output horsepower), and while turbochargers are often advertised as "free" horsepower, that's not accurate. It still takes horsepower to spin them, and that means that your total energy that needs to be created in the combustion chambers (i.e. BTUs, IOW heat) needs to go up.
You are correct that if you're looking at, say, an O-360 vs. an O-540 that has the same HP/cubic inch, overall you're looking at the same general internal forces, heat, etc. Even then there's more to it due to differences in construction, size, thermal gradients... but parallel valve naturally aspirated 360s/540s are about as bulletproof of engines as they get.
For climb, my POH calls for full throttle, max RPM, for a turbo engine. One issue with pulling the power back is, there is a full power enrichment on most engines, so full throttle gets a richer (cooler) mixture. Pull the throttle just a bit, and the fuel flow drops a good bit due to this.
Again, partly true. I'm assuming you're flying a Continental based on the above, and you're correct that Continental fuel injection systems are often not great at fueling for an appropriate climb power. This is addressed in different ways on different aircraft. It's better to run at full power and an appropriate mixture than pulled back a bit and too lean of a mixture, but if your engine is properly adjusted, this shouldn't be an issue.
Then again, if you're actually flying a 260 HP engine, I wouldn't be worried about full throttle for climb. Most TSIO-520s are 285-335 HP (depending on the aircraft and various upgrades available). Also understand that POHs aren't always written with your engine's longevity in mind.
You state 1 - 2 seconds from idle to full throttle. IMO, that is still very quick throttle movement. I am more in the camp of 4 - 5 seconds to not screw up dynamic counterweights.
Not all engines have counterweights, but either way 4-5 seconds won't hurt anything. Have at it if that's what you prefer - unless you're like the Cirrus pilot I once flew with who not only took 5 seconds to get to full throttle but did it on a short field as a rolling takeoff. He about put the plane off the end of the runway.
The real point is don't just slam it to the firewall.
Regarding the question about oil recommendation at 180F, as with everything else above, it gets more complicated. Remember that an oil temperature is the temperature at one location. Oil takes many paths through the engine, and especially in an air-cooled engine where the oil is part of the cooling, most of those places are >212F. As the oil hits those places, the water boils out. The real recommendation behind 180 is that, at that temperature, water should boil out overall as the oil gets run through the hotter parts of the engine. Your CHTs are going to be well above 212F in almost all cases, and even those are only individual point readings. I have no pictures of instrumented cylinders that we used to run at the factory, but they looked like swiss cheese with all the thermocouples.
If you want to run a simple experiment to see the difference and have an engine monitor, use a normal CHT probe (in the cylinder barrel on the bottom of the cylinder) and one under the spark plug on the same cylinder. You'll see a very noticeable difference.
Pinecone, from your posts here and regarding ABS, you seem like a younger fellow - which is great! We need more younger fellows in aviation and the automotive world. I was once one too. Now I'm old and among other things I've learned that there's the simple explanation (what is usually given to the end consumer in manuals), the slightly more complicated answer (what folks like GAMI tend to sell) and the real truth, which gets even more complicated. I’ll also bet I’ve spent more time running these engines in fully instrumented test cells than anyone else on this board and there’s still a lot I don’t know.
