Background:
Equilibrium Tuning has misled consumers for almost two years with its Blaze Performance ATOM Race intake advertising.
…advertising must tell the truth and not mislead consumers. A claim can be misleading if relevant information is left out or if the claim implies something that’s not true.
Federal Trade Commission
The business suggests swapping from undefined “certain intakes” may “necessitate” revision to boost strategy.
Given the similarity in performance of aftermarket intakes and even the modified stock intake, this statement would apply to only a tiny percentage of cherry-picked, poorly performing intakes.
In this case, EQT could be transparent and advise consumers of which intakes they have found problematic since Ed Susman, owner of Equilibrium Tuning, has shown little restraint in disparaging competitors’ products:
Note: ARM Motorsport has the basis for a Lanham Act lawsuit against Equilibrium Tuning for product disparagement and trade libel.
More obviously deceptive in the EQT advertisement is the use of the word “necessitate“:
The statement by EQT that a change to the Blaze ATOM might require an update to the engine tune is false. While there might be an opportunity to optimize further, this is not required, as EQT claims.
Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive.
Federal Trade Commission
EQT Misleading Advertising
The core issue of EQT’s misleading advertising for the Blaze Performance ATOM Race intake is the mismatching of the components.
I have repeatedly shown examples from others and my tests (see references below) of an aftermarket intake paired with a stock-size inlet elbow of around 49 mm diameter. I compared that with a hybrid-size inlet elbow using a hybrid-size turbocharger with a 56-60 mm inlet.
The evidence clearly shows that the inlet elbow significantly changes the pressure loss before the turbocharger, and the selection of intake makes only a small difference.
Equilibrium Tuning omits any mention of the inlet elbow’s role in explaining the differences, which makes its advertising deceptive under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
When I explained to EQT owner Ed Susman that his advertising for the intake is leaving out critical information, Ed demonstrated why I consider him to be the most dishonest businessperson in the VW aftermarket, claiming about the Blaze Advertising:
I’m not omitting anything.
Ed Susman – Owner of Equilibrium Tuning Inc.
Now is a good time to remind you of why people like Ed Susman bullshit:
- Avoiding Consequences – Bullshitting can be a strategy to avoid the negative consequences that come with admitting fault or taking responsibility.
- Protecting Self-Image – Bullshitting allows individuals to maintain a facade of competence or infallibility.
- Lack of Integrity – Some individuals may lack integrity or ethical principles, choosing to prioritize their gain or agenda over honesty and accountability.
That statement from Ed Susman was false, and if you’ve read any of the dozen-plus prior posts where I review other false statements made by Ed Susman, it is no surprise that Ed is making a false statement here.
What he goes on to say is interesting in that it shows Ed trying to bullshit about why his advertising is omitting important information about the contribution of the inlet elbow. Because if the information were included, according to Ed, it would cause “confusion for the customer.”
Yes, that’s right; if you were told that the inlet elbow is the key element of the intake affecting the flow rate, you would be confused.
You cannot make this stuff up; here it is in Ed’s own words:
Conclusions:
Equilibrium Tuning Inc. (EQT) uses deceptive advertising to promote the Blaze Performance ATOM intake. EQT’s advertising is misleading because important information is omitted that would “affect consumers’ behavior or decisions about the product or service.” – FTC
The owner of Equilibrium Tuning, Ed Susman, has a record of making false and misleading statements to consumers, and in this post, more evidence is shown of Ed Susman’s bullshitting.
Consumers and other businesses should be on their guard when interacting with Ed Susman or other members of Equilibrium Tuning, given the substantial evidence of unethical business practices used by Ed Susman.
References:
Blaze intake comparisons:
- Blaze Real World Data – Check #1
- Blaze Real World Data – Check #2
- Blaze Real World Data – Check #3
- Blaze Real World Data – Check #4
- Blaze Real World Data – Check #5
- Blaze Real World Data – Check #6
- APR PEX vs Blaze ATOM – Hybrid Turbo Street Comparison
- APR MST vs APR Epman – Hybrid Turbo Street Comparison
- Racingline R600 vs Blaze ATOM – Hybrid Turbo Street Comparison
- Modified Stock vs Blaze ATOM – Hybrid Turbo Street Comparison
EQT misleading information:
- 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.
- Ed Susman’s bullshitting a consumer about the ARM Motorsport intercooler.