BS Meter

Reviewing EQT – Pro Grade Bullshit


After making a post reviewing EQT’s unsubstantiated claims for the Blaze Performance intake, Ed Susman, the owner of Equilibrium Tuning, made numerous false statements about me, which I have debunked previously.

EQT Unsubstantiated Performance Claim
EQT Unsubstantiated Performance Claim

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 being limited, made false statements about me being a hack, and made false statements about questions I emailed to the business containing “demands”.

Ed made several false statements to another consumer who commented on my review, which I discussed previously.

Another claim that Ed Susman made was that other “tuners and shop owners” believed my review was erroneous.

In this post, I look at how Ed Susman bullshits another person who works for an aftermarket business when Ed was asked to back up his claims.

Shop Representative Introduction:

New German Performance

As someone that professionally tests and calibrates on a dyno, I appreciate his [Jeff] attention to detail and proper testing methodology.

Charles A Strosnider II – New German Performance

Discussion entry:

While Ed Susman was making false statements to consumers Charles from New German Performance joined the discussion by giving his perspective:

Questioning Ed Susman
Questioning Ed Susman

What followed is a master class from Ed Susman on bullshitting someone.

100% bullshit

The entire response that Ed Susman of Equilibrium Tuning gives to Charles Strosnider of New German Performance is bullshit – there is not one single true statement (except for the statement that EQT ignored the questions that I emailed to his business).

Here is a review of the bullshit Ed Susman communicates to Charles.

Questions misrepresented as demands:

Previously, in this post I showed how the questions that I sent to EQT about the Blaze intake were misconstrued by Ed Susman as being “demands”. Ed makes this false statement to Charles (except for the part where Ed admits to failing to respond to the questionsthat part was true).

ED Susman False Statement #1
ED Susman False Statement #1

Providing data:

Ed then falsely claims to Charles that he provided “real world” data that contradicts flow testing I have conducted.

This claim is baseless.

I have previously discussed how the PTS Flowbench is comparable to commercial products sold by SuperFlow and Saenz and Ed Susman’s claim to Charles about the device being limited is false.

Ed Susman Bullshits Charles
Ed Susman Bullshits Charles – False Statement #2 & #3

Considering data:

Anyone who has interacted with me on the topic of these cars has likely experienced my affinity for data in support of opinions.

Defying logic, Ed Susman proclaims to Charles in the next sentence that he provided data to me that I “refused” to consider.

Even more inexplicable is that in Ed’s prior statement to Charles, he says his company ignored a request I made of them for data about the Blaze intake.

Ed Susman Bullshits Charles - False Statement #4
Ed Susman Bullshits Charles – False Statement #4

On the one hand, Ed tells Charles that I sent his business a request for information and he ignored it, and then he tells Charles that he sent me information and I refused to consider it.

No Idea

Ed can’t seem to keep his story straight, that’s a problem with making false statements.

Ad hominem:

A good bullshit argument wouldn’t be complete without the Logical Fallacy of an Ad Hominem attack, and Ed Susman is a very thorough bullshitter:

Ed Susman Ad Hominem
Ed Susman Ad Hominem

In his bullshitting of Charles, Ed throws out a variation of an Ad Hominem attack he has used previously:

Ed Susman Bullshits Charles - False Statement #5
Ed Susman Bullshits Charles – False Statement #5

This fifth false statement from Ed Susman has been previously debunked.

No questions please:

Next, Ed Susman tells this other businessperson that a consumer has “especially no business” sending questions to his company about the claims it makes for the products it sells.

It’s about this point that questions of how Equilibrium Tuning Inc. has become a successful aftermarket parts business start to rise. How is it that a business owner who makes as many false statements as Ed Susman does leads what appears to be a financially profitable business?

Ed Susman Bullshits Charles - False Statement #5
Ed Susman Bullshits Charles – False Statement #6

Reviews not allowed:

Ed Susman closes referring back to my review where I point out that the claims for the Blaze ATOM V2 intake were not substantiated.

Despite his business not presenting consumers with substantiation to support the claims it makes, a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, Ed Susman states to Charles that a consumer has no business making a review of the claims his company made about a product it sells.

Ed Susman Bullshits Charles
Ed Susman Bullshits Charles

This point about how Ed Susman seems to view his business with regard to Federal and State laws will be the subject of a future post.


Notably, after all that bullshit Charles stays on point and asks Ed to detail how the information I have presented is incorrect.

… could you provide a breakdown as to how his [Jeff] data is incorrect? This is me asking as a working professional in this field for about a decade and a half that regularly tunes, dyno tests and calibrates cars (also works on a professional race team, but that’s not super relevant to this discussion).

Charles A Strosnider II – New German Performance
Question for Ed Susman
Question for Ed Susman

Ed’s response is to tell Charles to go and read a lengthy piece of bullshit Ed has already posted. I’ve previously discussed Ed Susman’s post and provided evidence showing it “contains a tour de force of unsubstantiated claimsfalse statementshypocrisy, and logical fallacies.

Ed then wraps up by making two more false statements. First, Ed repeats the false claim that the PTS flow bench is inadequate for testing car parts, and then Ed restates the false claim that I refuse to consider other data.

Ed Susman Pro Grade Bullshit
Ed Susman Pro Grade Bullshit – False Statement # 7 and #8

Charles continues by pointing out that Ed hasn’t made an argument for my testing being invalid.

I’m still failing to see how his [Jeff] testing is invalid though?

Charles A Strosnider II – New German Performance
Charles questions for Ed Susman

Unsuccessful at bullshitting Charles, Ed Susman stops responding to Charles and leaves this discussion.

Ed Susman’s Disappearing Act


Although Ed Susman began by claiming that “tuners and shop owners” believed the review I made was in error, facts show that a representative from a shop with tuning experience (Charles Strosnider of New German Performance) questioned Ed Susman about his claims and Ed tried unsuccessfully to bullshit Charles making eight (8) false statements to him.

Without ever responding with facts, when another aftermarket professional pressed Ed Susman to explain how the testing I had conducted was invalid, Ed Susman failed to answer the question and instead left the discussion.

The number of false statements made by the owner of Equilibrium Tuning in connection to the review of the deceptive advertising for the Blaze Performance intake is very concerning for the implications it has for consumers and other businesses in terms of unfair competition laws.


Original discussion screenshots.

Ed Susman Pro Grade Bullshit
Ed Susman Pro Grade Bullshit
Ed Susman Pro Grade Bullshit
Ed Susman Pro Grade Bullshit
Ed Susman – Full Bullshit

2 thoughts on “Reviewing EQT – Pro Grade Bullshit”

  1. So do you know at this point what the “conflicting real world data” actually is? Just WG duty values? I still don’t understand how your work contradicts anything w/r to the Blaze intake used on a hyrbid turbo with the correct adapter. I can see how their claims don’t stand up to using it on a OE-sized turbo vs. other intakes. Basically, it’s a bit of marketing trickery w/r to the inlet being really all the gains (vs. other similar high-flow intakes) are based on how I understand it.

    1. The first question needs to be, “what is the angle Ed is playing“? Since he is a bullshitter, statements being true or false is unimportant, identifying the reason why he is being misleading is what we want to understand.

      Ed made these comments quickly in response to unfavorable information about his business in an effort to discredit the source of the review. The bullshitting is a distraction from the issue that his business was advertising a product with claims that it could not substantiate. I had never claimed the Blaze intake did not perform well, therefore there was no “conflicting real world data“.

      Stick around for a future post where I show examples of Ed’s comments to a couple of skeptical consumers where he tells them there is no conflicting data for the Blaze intake.

Leave a Reply