Background:
Several months ago I made a post reviewing the claims that EQT makes for the Blaze Performance intake and compared those claims with advertising standards published by the Federal Trade Commission.
Events following the review have prompted me to look more closely at how the people at Equilibrium Tuning conduct themselves.
Communication:
Within a few hours of making my review of EQT’s product claims the following communication was received from Ed Susman, the owner of EQT:
Note: I believe making this threat to a consumer about a review violates the Federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA).
Activity:
It has been over four months since Ed Susman stated I would hear from an attorney “soon” and there has been no communication from an attorney on Ed’s behalf.
Implication:
Receiving a threat from the business owner in response to a factual review raises the question of how frequently consumers making honest but unflattering reviews about EQT have been threatened by the business and chose not to share their experiences.
Suppressing unfavorable information would contribute to giving an unbalanced impression that one’s business has many happy customers.
This action by the business owner seeking to suppress unfavorable information about the business contradicts the owner’s prior statement that the company was “only asking for honest reviews“.
Equally remarkable to making the threat is the owner’s statement that the review, after being online for approximately 6 hours, was hurting their business and causing financial damage.
The review pointed out that in the Blaze intake advertisement, the claims EQT makes are not substantiated.
If this fact was in question the business could present evidence to the contrary. At this time it has been over six months since the company began selling the product to consumers and there is still no substantiation for the claims accompanying the product advertisement.
Another remarkable aspect of Ed Susman’s complaint is that he is saying that the truth is hurting his business and causing financial damage.
Misinformation:
The communication above from Ed Susman is another example of using a logical fallacy, something I showed multiple examples of Ed doing with other consumers in the prologue post.
In response to my pointing out that his business does not provide substantiation for the performance claims, Ed wants to know when my flow bench was calibrated and certified. This has no relation to the failure of EQT to substantiate its claim.
He also wants to know my certifications and qualifications that make me qualified to operate the flow bench. This also has no relation to the failure of EQT to substantiate its claim.
Ed then requests that if I do not provide the irrelevant information he has requested I should take my review down.
These requests by Ed Susman are a Red Herring. A misleading statement or argument meant to redirect away from an original topic.
Conclusions for future reference:
- Ed Susman, the owner of EQT, made threats to a consumer to try to suppress an unfavorable review.
- Ed Susman stated I would be contacted by an attorney soon, a claim that is false.
- Ed Susman stated that his business is being negatively affected by a truthful review.
- Ed Susman used a Red Herring (misleading statement) to try to suppress my review of his business’s unsubstantiated claims.
Ed sure is acting sus, man
Thank you for continuing to provide information and real world and bench testing. your work here is invaluable to the community!
You’re welcome! Thanks for letting me know that you find the information valuable.
From the b5 platform to this one I do enjoy reading the information you provide to the community.
Thank you!
Hi Jeff!
Thanks for being one of the only ones in the community who actually validate the claims made by 3rd party manufacturers.
I am actually surprised that it took this long since you’ve been presenting your tests for other manufacturers too.
I understand Ed’s point of view as well – its not good for business, of course… I would have hoped for some data back from them to back their claims too.
You’re welcome!
Unfortunately for us enthusiasts (consumers), the evidence points to actions that are at odds with Federal advertising and marketing laws. Deferring to what the law states is my preference when it comes to the content used for marketing.
EQT has always been shady. You should hear about their R and S3 vortex with stock dp drama some of the beta testers went through. Why do you think they axed the a3 and GTI versions of the beta?
Then there’s this alleged “who said we won’t seek carb” for the stock dp vortex tunes. Like, why give people hope. You can’t even control your own software and are at the mercy of Cobb. They know damn well they couldn’t even think of being able to afford carb exemptions for all the mk7’s and 7.5’s. I felt that was dirty of them
And the whole thing with their hpfp’s. Always blaming the installer for installing wrong. When most of the time it’s the pump’s build quality that’s in question. According to two Audi/Vw shops in my area. The autotechs are “cheap junk” and they prefer to install the Apr ones due to them being of better quality and even capable of flowing more. One shop is strongly considering either telling customers they won’t install autotechs or asking customers to sign a document that makes them aware how crappy those pumps are and setting expectations along the lines of, “this pump could go bad and we will not swap it for free. We recommend a different pump for xyz reasons.”
But regardless of all of this. I’ve seen many logs of GTI’s A3’s S3’s and R’s in many states of modification. Eqt definitely has very talented tuners. And I won’t attempt to even think of taking that away from them. IMO their tunes are a hair too aggressive for my liking but that’s just me and it’s easily corrected with an etune asking for a few changes here and there. I also believe their dsg tune for the 6 speed is the best I’ve ever driven in S and 2nd best in D
Anywho. Eqt is in a situation created by none other than themselves. You can’t keep getting away with success you don’t deserve. It seems like they haven’t realized that yet.
The point about EQT creating the situation for themselves is spot on. Everything I’ve commented on, and will do in future posts, is based on demonstrable evidence.
Yeah dude. My buddy has that intake. Makes great sounds on his is38. No doubt. But is all that money really worth an extra 1-3whp over an IE intake? Or an injen?
Biggest thing this intake has going for it are temps when the car is moving fwd. it’s ambient. Once you stop. Temps climb. This is normal expected behavior. But there’s other intakes that cost way less that behave the same way too
I’d rather spend less and get a carb sticker with the IE option. Since it too goes ambient when moving fwd. Neuspeed is cheaper and carb legal too. Gotta go forward from a stop for a while before the damn thing sucks in ambient temps. But it’ll do it too.
I’d be interested in seeing data showing ambient air temperature entering the turbo with an intake. I went to some lengths to accomplish that and haven’t been successful yet.
I used meat probes. Your way seems better lol
Cutting the duct open on the driver side helped a good bit too. Though it seems like you’ve been messing with that lately too
Yikes, it just keeps getting worse. It’s truly leaving a bad taste in mouth. I for one appreciate all the work you put in to do the research. I always come here to see the numbers, charts and plots you provide. Of course Ed is trying to protect his business, but the way he’s going about it is all wrong.
Waaah, you called me out! Let me try and discredit you. It is like a child calling someone names because they got called out. Seriously, put up the proof of the claims they are making and they will prove you wrong – problem solved for them. Problem is they probably don’t have anything to put up so all they can do is stamp their feet and make feeble legal threats that would get them laughed out of the any decent lawyers office let alone a court room.
The actions of people with the business point to a decidedly nonscientific approach, belying the impression they try to present of technical competence at evaluating parts.