Background:
Following on the heels of yesterday’s post showing the adverse results of consumers believing Ed Susman, this morning in a Mk7 enthusiast Facebook Group we find Ed Susman tempering the claims related to the Blaze ATOM Race intake.
As a reminder, we’re still waiting on the data from EQT to back up the claims they make for the Blaze ATOM intake:
One must wonder how many years of selling the intake will pass before EQT releases the data it claimed to have when it began selling the Blaze intake.
New EQT Stance:
As we continue to wait for EQT to release their data we find their owner, Ed Susman, softening the expectations of how well the Blaze ATOM performs compared to other intakes.
An important point to keep in mind is Ed’s use of the words “We have seen…“, “I haven’t seen…“, and “I have seen…“.
These are all indicators that Ed is giving his opinion and are not evidence.
Ed’s history as a prolific bullshitter requires staying on guard when considering information coming from him.
Bullshit – To talk nonsense to especially with the intention of deceiving or misleading
Comparison:
For the sake of this review, we will assume that Ed Susman’s opinion that the Blaze ATOM Race intake performs similarly to the AMS Performance intake and the Eventuri intake is accurate.
Here’s how these three intakes compare when using a stock inlet elbow (~49 mm):
Six (6) CFM separates the highest and lowest flowing intakes @ 28″ of H2O.
This next comparison is using a hybrid turbo elbow (~56 mm):
In the hybrid test, ten (10) CFM separate the highest and lowest flowing intakes.
These results corroborate what Ed Susman has stated, that all three intakes perform similarly when the comparison includes a turbo inlet elbow.
What is noteworthy about all of these intakes is that they are in the middle of the range of intakes tested using a stock inlet elbow, and the lower part of the range of intakes tested with the hybrid turbo.
While the intakes perform similarly, in agreement with Ed Susman’s statement, they are not among the top-performing intakes that have been tested using the flow bench.
This is a result that is at odds with the claims EQT made for the intake:
It’s worth noting that the claims in the EQT advertising shown above also evolved after the product had been sold by EQT for almost a year and the claim was removed from the advertising. By then a “consensus” had formed amongst many enthusiasts that the Blaze ATOM was the best-performing intake available and that EQT had proven this to be true.
Conclusion:
References:
- Equilibrium Tuning unsubstantiated claims about product performance
- Equilibrium Tuning misleading claims for independent product testing
- Ed Susman’s false statements about the flow bench that I use
- Ed Susman’s false statements about my consideration of data
- Ed Susman’s false statements about the testing I’ve done being flawed
- Ed Susman’s false statements about the testing that I perform being limited
- Ed Susman’s false statements about me being a hack
- Ed Susman’s false statements about questions I emailed to the business containing “demands”
- Ed Susman’s false statements to another consumer who commented on my review
- Ed Susman’s statements about professionalism being optional
- Ed Susman’s false statements to a performance shop employee who questioned Ed’s claims
- Ed Susman makes threats to suppress a consumer review
- Ed Susman bullshits a consumer on social media
- Equilibrium Tuning unsubstantiated claim about tune reliability being OEM-like.
- Ed Susman’s false statements to consumers about a tune reliability post.
- Equilibrium Tuning false advertising of independent testing.
- Ed Susman’s bullshitting has consequences for consumers.
It’s as if they’re trying to set expectations due to their data looking similar to yours 😂
In each case of Blaze user information I’ve reviewed the results match what I’ve measured.
EQT and Blaze fail to disclose significant information about the “competitors” intakes, but truth is starting to catch up.
I was thinking… Have you ever thought of performing a Gauge R&R study on the flow bench to determine its repeatability and reproducibility? How do you know the ranking of the intakes is not within the gauge measurement error?
Short answer, no.
I would expect that if there was a large amount of variability that would be evident when retesting with the same part. As an example, the Blaze intake referenced in this post was flow tested about two years ago, and when I retested it again a couple of weeks ago the results were the same. There is some variability in the measurements, due to a couple of factors. One is that the airflow through these parts is turbulent, and that causes pressure fluctuations which affect the flow rates. I consider any reading to be +/- 2 CFM on account of this. Another consideration is the assembly of multiple parts and how they are fit together. Angles of alignment and rotation, how far a part is inserted into a connector hose, are examples of factors that can affect the result. They don’t change the results in a dramatic way, at least from when I have tried moving parts around to see how the flow rate varies, but it can make a couple of CFM difference.
I also visit the PTS Forum occasionally to read about other users/shops experience with the flow bench / digital manometer and I have not read that others have experienced getting unreliable measurements.
What would you say is a good intake and inlet pipe, I have heard some good things about the ie intake and inlet which has more gains when adding the inlet pipe.
I think if you’re using a turbo that a conventional TIP fits that so long as you have an appropriate TIP for the turbo, stock size for a stock size turbo or hybrid size for a hybrid size turbo, that the intake selection options are large. I think IE and the IE TIP are fine for their intended use.