[rhjames]

John-

I wasn't aware that I said anything about heat production, or its use.....

All I pointed out was that in this discussion between who's the top dog on the block, it would be nice to do some real world testing to see just where the king of the hill really is......

Short of that, it's one opinion to another.

( And no, I won't get into a discussion about dyno numbers and what they tell you, because there will be another discourse about how the numbers were produced with what car, what altitude, blah, blah, blah.....)

I will, however, add this:

lifespan of any particular engine component, whether it be the turbocharger or supercharger is greatly dependent upon the amount of servicing and the components design.

In my experience, in the diesel truck world, turbos are not as long lasting as superchargers.

1. I've had two Detroit Diesels with superchargers that were never rebuilt nor failed in over 2 million miles.

2. I have had 7 other engines (CAT, Detroit Diesel, Cummins) in my fleet, and have replaced 9 turbochargers due to failure or necessary rebuilds.

Lastly, a good friend of mine up in Arkansas, running a 6-71 supercharger on his stroked and bored BBC (over 600 cubic inches--in a 70 Chevelle convertible, no less), has run his blower motor for over 25 years without any supercharger related failures. And he runs his blower at 25% overdrive, producing nearly 30 psi on race gas. Yes, he has had other failures with the engine, but no supercharger/belt /drive pulley failures in 25 years...

What I'm trying to say is that there will be folks that have had good experiences with both, and none of the above.

Until all of you guys get together and do a real test with a base line car, it's all "mine is better than yours, yours is not better than mine, etc......"

I am still amused with the idea of force feeding an engine that's got 100,000 plus miles on it with even cracking the heads off of it to see if there is a head gasket left.......)

---Russ