A turbo is MUCH easier on parts than any other power adder and you can even make the argument with NA thrown in at high specific outputs. It's the idiots who do not know how to tune that give turbocharging a bad name.

Supercharging is the same damn thing, both are glorified air compressors but the turbo relies on exhaust energy for "power" and that doesn't necessarily mean backpressure, especially once under full boost with the wastegate partially or mostly open. For the same measured hp, a supercharged engine will have to actually make more hp and more stress on the bottom end because the supercharger eats up some of that power. For a given RWHP, the supercharged car will require slightly more fuel which has to be accounted for when designing the setup. So at the same rwhp, a turbo car is easier on engine internals than a supercharger.

You can throw in the fact that the compressor side of a turbo is usually lots more efficient than a supercharger with only a "laggy" centrifugal blower matching a turbo's compressor efficiency with comparable charge air temps but you still have that pesky belt zapping power and most make boost according to rpm where a turbo makes boost according to load. In other words, the turbo car will likely have much more power "under the curve".

IMO, one of the biggest advantages to a modern turbo car is that the turbo completely shapes the power curve and determines where peak torque will be made. You now have small engines making tons of torque and some are doing so at very low rpm. Where ever the turbo can hit full boost, you're at full torque. If you prefer the naturally aspirated-like powerband you can shape the boost curve to kill the wonderful bottom end torque and have it ramp up more like a NA car but with lots more power.

My GN makes a peak of 620lbs to the tires at 2,800rpm which happens to be the stall speed of the converter, I'm sure peak torque would be even lower if it had a lower stall. It holds that torque for a few thousand rpm. The only way to make good low rpm power is to make tons of low rpm torque. It drives like a 600 cube big block, not like a high strung 6 banger. My 4 banger '14 328 is even more impressive with 290lbs to the wheels at 1,500rpm yet pulls hard to 7k. You will never, ever, get that kind of torque and power from a 2.0L without a turbo. It drives like a healthy non performance V8 car, not like a laggy high boost 4 banger that makes full boost right before it's time to shift.

The low rpm power can be hard on bearings but as long as you run an oil with a high enough HTHSv and don't have toothpick sized rods like my TL does, you'll be fine. I knew back in the mid '90s that one day most cars would be turbocharged and one day the V8 guys would begin applying the same technology that I've enjoyed all of these years and that time has come. Now you have fully streetable LSx cars that idle smooth and near stock quad cam Mustangs making an easy 750hp that drive just like a stocker with the help of an air compressor.

Direct injection is partially responsible for the explosion of forced induction from the factory scene lately. Now manufactueres can run respectable boost levels on 91 octane while maintaining the same compression ratio as they had without boost. Compression means little for power production but what makes it very important for a manufacturer is the much larger effect it has on MPG. With DI, you can have your cake and eat it too, overlooking the toothing problems they've had with it.

I'm going off topic now. Supercharging and turbocharging are both using air compressors to get more air in the cylinders. The turbo will usually do it at a lower temperature since the compressor is more efficient at a given boost and CFM over a blower and most turbos are accompanied by an intercooler while only some supercharged cars are intercooled (but more and more are being added to the list).

Nitrous tends to be harder on parts but to be fair, a lot of that is also a lack of tuning.

Even compared to naturally aspirated, at the same power and at the same displacement, a turbo car does not require that it be revved to the moon to make respectable hp, while to get that NA car to be in the same ballpark, you've likely got the best heads money can buy, a huge cam, a built bottom end, and you're revving it to the limits of the valve train and bottom end.

In the end, people need to stop romanticizing turbocharging and understand it better. When naturally aspirated, the engine has to suck air into the cylinders. Your range of throttle is ~20" vacuum to nearly 0" vacuum at full throttle. A turbo car expands this range. Now you can go from -20" at idle to +30psi at full throttle. That's it. But for some reason when you cross over from vacuum into positive manifold pressure people lose all common sense and reason and think something magical and unexplainable happens. You're just shoving more air into the cylinders and going from a vacuum to a positive pressure. Mine hits zero vacuum/zero boost at around 1/4 throttle. This would be full power if I was NA. Luckily I have another 30psi to go and luckily the turbo starts assisting by 1,500rpm, giving a big, fat, wide powerband and the cam/heads allow it to pull to 6,200rpm which is too much for the stock bottom end anyway.

Last, with today's awesome turbo choices, if you run into a car that uses a blower and a turbo and it's not a 2 stroke diesel, it's all for looks/marketing/cool factor. Today's turbos spool so well while supporting the top end so well, the blower is just dead weight. It's not like the late '90s when in order to make 600whp on a V6 and not run a Supra-like 13 sec 1/4 or pull a 3.3 60', a 50shot was needed to make it spool that would shut off at 10psi on a Hobbs switch. I forgot the original question lol.

One last thing about the Ecoboosts, while I have very little experience with them, I've had to change plugs in some family members' cars. Most had a tiny crack in the porcelain that would short to ground once cylinder pressure and the accompanying additional resistance across the gap would make it ground at the spark plug tube. In other words, they ran fine until they went under boost. Others just needed a smaller gap and I've never liked iridium plugs or even platinum plugs for boosted engines. Regular $2 plugs have always worked the best for me. Driving around with a misfire for long periods of time is obviously bad for fuel dilution (rings/cylinders/oil/catalytic converters/fuel trims based off of a false reading from the 02s. This might be partically to blame for failures. The ECU sees a false rich condition from the misfire and leans the whole bank (or whole engine) out until it sees the right AFR but in real life, one cylinder is sending raw fuel through the exhaust while the others are running lean. Even with DI, preignition (and to a lesser degree, detonation) can occur especially on the misfiring cylinder and preignition is the much worse condition. I'm sure the water in the intercooler doesn't help things either.