Background:
Recently, I came across an exchange on the EQT business Facebook Group in which Ed Susman, the owner of EQT, misled a consumer about the ARM Motorsport intercooler for the Mk7.
Several prior posts (see references) have discussed how Ed Susman conducts business unethically and dishonestly, and this exchange serves as yet another example of Ed misleading consumers in a way that harms another aftermarket parts supplier.
Exchange review:
In this instance, a consumer posts a request about a suitable intercooler for their car after being told by Ed Susman that the ARM Motorsport intercooler that the consumer has is not adequate for their use.
Note: Although EQT is a catalog seller of other businesses’ manufactured products, it does not sell the ARM Motorsport intercooler. Therefore, any advice from EQT concerning competing products is a conflict of interest.
When another user comments that they have not had any issues using the ARM Motorsport intercooler with their car using the Vortex Standard turbocharger, Ed Susman arrives to bullshit this consumer.
Issue #1: Ed Susman tuner
The first issue is not immediately apparent but stems from Ed Susman’s career as a computer programmer turned car parts salesman. On several occasions, Ed has exhibited a lack of skill and attentiveness in analyzing and interpreting physical science data.
Ed Susman’s tendency for bullshitting consumers exacerbates this shortcoming in relevant knowledge.
Issue #2: No evidence
Although Ed Susman claims that “We have seen very suboptimal results…” no evidence is provided to support this claim.
This illustrates a familiar modus operandi for Ed, presenting himself as knowledgeable on a topic, claiming to have “seen” something while not providing any evidence for the other party to review.
Issue #3: Contradicting evidence
When I first tested the do88 intercooler in 2020, a consumer who had been using the Baun Performance intercooler and switched to do88 supplied me with their before-and-after data logs.
The person was using a Vortex XL turbocharger, the same product as the person who posed the original question on social media.
The ARM Motorsport intercooler is a copy of the Vibrant 12810 intercooler used in the Baun Performance kit and offers similar performance. Although it is not the exact product, the performance is similar enough to be used in a comparison where Ed Susman of EQT claimed to have “seen very suboptimal results.”
The 2020 Vortex XL comparison data between Baun and do88 was collected under similar ambient air temperature conditions, with an average difference of less than 5 degrees Fahrenheit.
Tests on this site have shown that the Baun Performance and ARM Motorsport intercoolers cool well. The 2020 comparison also showed little difference in IAT between Baun and the do88 stock location intercooler:
The boost curve from the turbocharger using each intercooler is very similar, with slightly more boost (0.3 psi @ 7000 rpm) shown when using the do88 intercooler:
The turbocharger wastegate duty cycle favors the do88 intercooler (7.25% difference @ 7000 RPM). This is consistent with flow test results that showed the do88 stock location intercooler causes less pressure drop than the Baun and ARM front mounts:
An important point regarding pressure drop is that ARM Motorsport recommends using a bicooler setup if operating with an upgraded turbocharger.
A bicooler produces a significant reduction in pressure drop across the intercooler, as discussed in the “Bicooler Blues” post, which would bring the wastegate duty cycle (WGDC) down and likely be indistinguishable from that of the do88 configuration.
Issue #4: Incorrect configuration
As discussed in the previous section, ARM Motorsport offers a bicooler option for the FMIC that it sells. It is likely that the “very suboptimal results…” that Ed Susman claims to have “seen” on “anything bigger than an IS38″ were obtained by having a mismatch of components. Specifically, EQT is likely comparing the ARM Motorsport FMIC using an upgraded turbocharger without the recommended bicooler hoses.
EQT has repeatedly promoted misleading results with the Blaze intake, using mismatched components on the products it claims the Blaze intake outperforms.
Still, comparing the Baun and do88 intercoolers does not indicate that the front mounts perform “very” suboptimally compared to the do88 intercooler that EQT resells.
Issue #5: Lanham Act
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act is a Federal Law that covers “unfair competition” regarding false and misleading advertising.
Ed Susman represents his business on social media and influences consumers’ purchase decisions with his communication. As with other advertising, Ed must have evidence to support his claims about products.
The Lanham Act primarily allows businesses to sue other companies for making false or misleading claims that harm fair competition.
Ed Susman claims that ARM Motorsport’s intercooler is unfavorable and states that it is based on evidence. The burden is on Ed Susman to prove that the ARM Motorsport intercooler, when appropriately used, is suboptimal when used on any turbocharger larger than an IS38.
Issue #6: I trust my tuner
Brenden Moke made the comment above. In the replies, Brenden states, “I trust my tuner,” regarding the statements that Ed Susman of EQT has made to him.
Here, Brenden has made a mistake in trusting Ed Susman. Ed has repeatedly demonstrated that he is willing to make false or misleading statements as part of his business activities.
It is this blind trust that Brenden has that Ed is taking advantage of to mislead Brenden. Brenden is getting Susman’d:
Susman’d – Falling victim to the bullshit spread by Ed Susman of Equilibrium Tuning.
Conclusion:
This post analyzes comments made by Equilibrium Tuning owner Ed Susman to consumers on social media about the ARM Motorsport intercooler.
Ed Susman’s claims were unsubstantiated, and evidence shown in this post suggests Ed Susman is “cherry-picking” data to mislead consumers about the ARM intercooler.
Ed Susman’s track record of making misleading statements, and the difficulty in proving what he has claimed in this example, leads one to conclude that Ed Susman is engaging in bullshitting consumers.
Ed might be engaging in this bullshit for several reasons; in this case, “lack of integrity” is most probable:
- Lack of Integrity – Some individuals may lack integrity or ethical principles, prioritizing their gain or agenda over honesty and accountability.
There is no evidence to support the conclusion that the ARM Motorsport intercooler is inadequate for use with a larger than IS38 turbocharger when used as recommended by the manufacturer.
Businesses competing with Equilibrium Tuning should familiarize themselves with the Lanham Act and take legal action when necessary to maintain fair competition in the marketplace.
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.
You haven’t tested the actual intercooler in question (ARM), and your own testing of a supposedly similar product shows that it does not perform as well as other options. It seems like you’re reaching here just to bad mouth someone you clearly don’t like.
Hi Anonymous,
Why do you state I have not tested the ARM intercooler when I have made a number of posts about my use of the ARM intercooler? That is a demonstrably false statement.
The Baun Performance kit does perform similar to other options, this is another demonstrably false statement.
My testing showed that the Baun intercooler performs similarly to the ARM intercooler, and the independent comparison using the larger than IS38 turbo indicates that the do88 and Baun intercoolers also perform similarly. This suggests that the ARM intercooler likely performs at a similar level to the do88, making the claim that it ‘performs poorly’ questionable.
Consider that EQT, as a business selling a competing intercooler, may have a vested interest in steering consumers away from the ARM intercooler. Truth in advertising laws are meant to ensure that businesses provide accurate and honest information, so any potentially biased claims should be scrutinized. My goal here is to highlight evidence.
Given this, it’s worth asking if your stance might be influenced by bias against the evidence I’ve presented? It’s easy to dismiss findings that don’t align with our preferences, but the data in this case speaks for itself.
My point is that the test you’re writing about here is not using the ARM intercooler, but a “similar product”.
And your own test shows it does not perform as well in this test in terms of pressure drop. You claim that this intercooler must be run in parallel with the stock core to achieve better results – clearly the intercooler itself does not flow as well as the Do88.
While EQT sells a certain product, they have no issue tuning with other products that perform well in a given setup. There are many EQT tuned cars running on other intercoolers like APR, AMS, IE without issue. Your assertion is false.
I think there’s still some misunderstanding. First, while this particular test involves the Baun intercooler, I’ve previously shared my direct experience with the ARM intercooler, showing similar performance. The performance similarity between the Baun and ARM intercoolers is relevant because independent tests show that the Baun performs comparably to the do88. This strongly suggests that the ARM and do88 intercoolers may also perform similarly.
Regarding pressure drop, while it is true that the Baun intercooler exhibits a slightly higher pressure drop compared to the do88, it’s important to understand that the effect on turbocharger operation is not as dramatic as it might seem. A slightly higher pressure drop does not mean the intercooler is underperforming.
As for EQT, I don’t doubt they tune for different setups, but their statement about the ARM intercooler having ‘very suboptimal results“-Ed Susman, seems to go beyond tuning preferences and into marketing. It’s fair to question claims when a business stands to gain by steering consumers toward a particular product they sell.
I’ve found the owner of EQT to be one of the most dishonest businesspeople I’ve dealt with in the automotive performance industry. That raises serious concerns about the objectivity of their claims.
My goal is to point out that truth in advertising is important, especially when consumers are being guided toward specific products. The aim of the post is to focus on the evidence and ensure that conclusions remain grounded in actual performance data, rather than marketing rhetoric or personal bias.
If a turbo is being pushed close to its efficiency peak, adding a pressure drop can significantly limit power.
Which independent testing shows that the Baun performs similarly to the DO88? What data shows that the ARM performs similarly to the Baun? Without direct testing, this seems like a bit of a reach.
That is incorrect. A turbocharger’s peak efficiency is at the middle of the compressor map, what you are describing would take place near the choke line. Also, you are speaking vaguely with no example of the magnitude of this effect. This erroneous statement poses an issue to keeping this discussion open since it is becoming routine that I need to correct misstatements.
The one referenced in this post. This statement poses another issue since it seems that you are simply arguing for the sake of doing so, unaware of, or ignoring, the information presented in the post showing how the products perform.
I’ve used both and it is documented on this site. This is another issue; you’ve failed to make an effort to educate yourself.
The issue raised in the post is that the owner of Equilibrium Tuning (Ed Susman) made derogatory objectives statements about a product that competes with one he sells that are unsubstantiated. The burden is on Ed Susman to substantiate his claim, both from a basic principle of argument standpoint, the burden of proof falls on the party making the claim, as well as from a legal standpoint (FTC Act and Lanham Act).
Ed was making a misleading representation of fact, which is likely to cause confusion to people who read his comments. As a representative of the business, his statements are false advertising.
Your time would be better spent asking Ed Susman to provide evidence that supports his claim, since the obligation is for him to have the evidence.
I’m going to close the comments for the reasons given above.