EQT Claims – Only Haters Say That


Previously I posted a review about aftermarket products supplier Equilibrium Tuning (EQT) lacking substantiation for these claims that it makes in connection with selling the Blaze ATOM V2 intake.

EQT Unsubstantiated Performance Claim
EQT Unsubstantiated Performance Claim

In that post, I referenced Federal Trade Commission guidelines that state substantiation is required by businesses for product claims at the time the advertisement is presented to consumers:

The requirement for advertisers to have adequate support for their advertising claims at the time they’re made is a bedrock principle of FTC law

Sam Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection

In response to the review of the unsubstantiated claims, the owner of Equilibrium Tuning Inc., Ed Susman, failed to address the unsubstantiated claims and instead made numerous false accusations about me.

In previous posts, I have shown that Ed Susman made false statements about the flow bench that I use, made false statements about my consideration of data supplied from other sources, made false statements about the testing I’ve done being flawed, made false statements about the testing that I perform is limited, made false statements about me being a hack, and made false statements about questions I emailed to the business containing “demands”.

When I published my review Ed Susman didn’t limit his comments to libelously trying to discredit me. In this post, I analyze Ed Susman’s statements bullshitting another consumer.

Bullshitting – To talk nonsense to, especially with the intention of deceiving or misleading.



After posting my review, another consumer observed that it was unlikely fans of EQT would believe the information about the misleading advertising.

Rather than presenting evidence to factually challenge the comments, Ed Susman responded by trying to discredit the person.

only a true EQT hater posts this.

Ed Susman – Owner of Equilibrium Tuning INC.

I’ve demonstrated previously that a recurring technique used by Ed Susman is the ad hominem” personal attack, a logical fallacy.

Logical fallacy – Errors in reasoning or argumentation that can undermine the validity of an argument.  They are often used to mislead or distract from the truth, or to win an argument by appealing to emotions rather than reason.

Logical Fallacies.org

This is the same approach Ed took when responding to my review of his business’s claims for the product.

Ed Susman Ad Hominem

Ed Susman Fact Check #1:

Do only EQT haters say that fans of EQT’s business blindly believe what Ed Susman says?

Here are some examples of people mindlessly parroting Ed Susman.

First, Ed Susman makes two statements I have shown are false, first about my flow bench, and then about my consideration of data from other sources:

Ed Speaks - Example Source
Ed Speaks – Example Source

Then these people repeat Ed’s false statements:

In Ed we trust - Example #1
In Ed we trust – Example #1

In Ed we trust - Example #2
In Ed we trust – Example #2

In Ed we trust - Example #3
In Ed we trust – Example #3


Evidence supports the claim that EQT fans believe Ed Susman without checking the validity of what Ed has said.

Jim Nigg’s statement of fact is not an indication of somebody “hating” a business.

Ed Susman’s statement is false.

Ed Susman Fact Check #2:

Ed Susman continues by making this objectively verifiable statement:

Most of the people responding and shooting down Jeff’s ridiculous accusations have nothing to do with EQT.

Ed Susman – Owner of Equilibrium Tuning INC.

Ed Susman claimed that my observation that his business provided no substantiation for the product claims was “ridiculous“.

Contrary to this, evidence proves my observation was accurate because there was no substantiation for the claim on the EQT product page.

EQT Blaze ATOM V2 Product Claim
Click on the image to enlarge
EQT Blaze ATOM V2 Product Claim
Click on the image to enlarge


Ed Susman’s statement is false.

Ed Susman Fact Check #3:

Ed Susman claimed that most of the people responding to the review “… have nothing to do with EQT.”

Tallying the Facebook post engagement showed at the time it was made that over 200 people responded to the post with a positive or negative response.

Contrary to Ed Susman’s claim, of the previously referenced 200+ people who gave a response, 72% of the unfavorable responses were from people who are identified as having membership in the EQT Facebook Group.

Unfavorable Response Trends

Of the respondents who gave a Favorable response to the review, 63% were not in the EQT Facebook Group.

Favorable Response Trends

This is a noteworthy result because it shows that the people who are more likely to actually “have nothing to do with EQT” showed favor for the review. The opposite of the claim Ed Susman made.


Evidence shows that Ed Susman’s statement was false.

Ed Susman Fact Check #4:

Ed Susman claimed that most of the people “shooting down” (making comments) about the review “have nothing to do with EQT.

Evidence shows that of the people making negative comments, as opposed to just giving a “Like” or other symbolic response, 76% of them were members of the EQT Facebook Group.

Unfavorable Comment Trend


Evidence shows that Ed Susman’s statement was false.

Overall there is a strong correlation between people who had membership in the EQT Facebook Group and reacting unfavorably to verifiable facts that are not flattering to the business, or acting in a manner complaisant with leading statements made by Ed Susman.

Overall Conclusion:

The evidence presented in this post supports the hypothesis that Ed Susman, the owner of Equilibrium Tuning INC. was bullshitting a consumer on matters involving the business’s unsubstantiated product claims.

The comments of consumer Jim were not the subject of this analysis. Still, the evidence presented in this post indicates the comments may be correct – fans of EQT (EQT Facebook Group membership) may prioritize believing Ed Susman’s claims over demonstrable facts.

Further investigation of the opinion trends of consumers with opportunities to be influenced by EQT is worth looking into.


Absent substantiation, claims made by Equilibrium Tuning about the Blaze ATOM V2 intake are deceptive. When presented with a review of this fact the owner of Equilibrium Tuning made numerous false accusations, attacking the person reporting the issue, and then attacked and made additional false statements to another consumer who had commented on the review.

The conduct of the owner of Equilibrium Tuning is concerning for being evasive, lacking transparency, and exhibiting dubious business ethics.

Beyond fulfilling legal obligations, ethical values in business show strong moral character from leaders and employees.


As I discussed in the previous post reviewing EQT, Ed Susman has a significant involvement with consumers on social media striving to sell his products. This direct communication from a business owner who has been shown to use false statements, personal attacks, and misleading claims puts consumers at risk of making purchase decisions based on poor-quality information.

Next topic:

In Ed Susman’s final statement, he claims that other “tuners and shop owners” share his belief that my review was erroneous.

In the next post on this matter, I review how Ed Susman responded when a person who works in the automotive aftermarket industry asked questions of Ed about his statements.

Source Commentary:

Leave a Reply