I guess that's just the "one is none & 2 is 1" coming out in me. I like to have options. Always be prepared is my moto. I guess the US Army did that to me. Anyways, we plan to get off the beaten path, & we are both pushing 60. I do not want to be stranded on the side of ANY road or in the middle of BFE. Redundancy is good---up to a point. I have the space & weight is NOT an issue with my truck. I carry an ARB plug kit as well & figure if i have a good compressor, why not have an impact as well.
Where are you getting the "real CFM @ 90 psi" from ? I have been reading 6+.
Makes sense then. I'd look for an efficient 3/8" drive, that uses relatively low CFM. If you operate an efficient 3/8" at full power, it may be similar to an inefficient 1/2" at partial power, but you have the benefit of a smaller wrench.
Real CFMs are very difficult to find, so I do my estimates based on real tire test, and in comparison to 120 volt compressors, which seem to be tested with much higher consistency. Single stage compressors are very similar in adiabatic efficiency, so if a 15 amp, 120V compressor is 5 CFM, then how can a 54 amp 12V (5.4a 120V equivalent) produce the 3.0 CFM that ARB advertises?
I'm using Romer's test to estimate ARB's CFM, based on Puma's 1.34 CFM rating. I believe Puma's rating because it's much closer to a 120V compressor based on power consumption (40A/12V, or 4.0A/120V):
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-135582.html
I did make a math error though, doing it again gives roughly 2.18 CFM for the ARB, which is very good.
138 seconds for Puma, 85 seconds for ARB (with tank). So, 138/85 x 1.34 CFM = 2.18 CFM
In comparison, the well respected ExtremeAire Magnum does 2.6 CFM @ 100 psi, and draws 82 amps. The ARB draws 63A at 90 psi (on ARB's graphs). If we go by their claim of 3.0 CFM, then either the Magnum is super inefficient (doubt it), or ARB is blowing smoke. But if we assume 2.18 the the power to CFM ratios would be very similar.