Introduction:
Recently, a comment surfaced regarding the Mabotech intercooler, a brand I’ve used extensively, describing ‘weird posts‘ associated with its products.
Since I’ve had firsthand experience installing and using the Mabotech stock mount IC and the front mount bicooler, I was curious to know more about what was supposedly ‘weird‘ about the intercoolers.
This example presents a good opportunity to show how misinformation is spread from one consumer to many others.
Misinformation – Incorrect or misleading information.
Background:
After discussing the issue with Bryan, he shared a Facebook post that attempted to discredit the Mabotech intercooler. The post’s author claimed the Mabotech intercooler was a rebranded, low-cost product found on AliExpress.
A closer inspection of the AliExpress intercooler core revealed significant differences from the Mabotech core. Despite these differences, many participants in the discussion mistakenly believed the AliExpress intercooler was the same as the Mabotech product.
Examples of misinformation:
Below is the post and image of the AliExpress intercooler that Jason Ray appeared to misidentify as the Mabotech stock-location intercooler.
Notably, someone tries to correct Jason’s misidentification without success.
This discussion also illustrates the bandwagon effect, where individuals adopt a viewpoint based on popular opinion rather than evidence.
The bandwagon effect is a psychological phenomenon where people adopt certain behaviors, styles, or attitudes simply because others are doing so.
In a follow-on conversation, Arlen echoes the misidentification, stating:
they are literally identicial other than the logo
Arlen Brodeur
Product comparison:
While both products share a similar black finish and stock location design, they exhibit significant differences.
First crosscheck:
Here is a closer look at the AliExpress and Mabotech cores side-by-side:
Pay close attention to the ratio of the core fin area to the charge air row area, which is a key differentiator.
Note: The charge air rows are solid horizontal lines running from the top to the bottom of the core. They are the passageways through which air passes after leaving the turbocharger on the way to the intake manifold.
The AliExpress core features a higher fin area relative to the charge air row area than the Mabotech core. These intercoolers do not have the same core designs and, therefore, cannot be the same.
A larger image of each core follows:
AliExpress
Mabotech
The AliExpress core is likely a tube and fin design based on the narrower charge air rows and the rounded appearance of those charge air rows.
In contrast, the Mabotech uses a bar-and-plate core design with thicker and flatter charge air rows.
Second crosscheck:
Another attribute of the cores that can be compared is the number of charge air rows.
This is done by counting the number of charge air rows the core contains.
The AliExpress core has 27 charge air rows.
Repeating the counting process with the Mabotech core results in 26 charge air rows.
Since the cores have a different number of charge air rows, they cannot be the same and, therefore, cannot be the same intercooler.
Third crosscheck:
Another way to compare the products is by using the weights.
The AliExpress intercooler weighs 11.5 kg, or 25 lbs.
Mabotech does not specify the weight of their intercooler on the product page, but since I have used it, I weighed the intercooler and found that it weighs 30 lbs.
The Mabotech weighs 20% more than the AliExpress, so these are not the same intercoolers.
Fourth crosscheck:
The inlet to the end tank is another area of distinctly different designs between the AliExpress and Mabotech intercoolers.
The AliExpress end tank lower edge has a slight upward angle relative to the bottom of the IC core, shown by the lower arrow.
Also, the inlet airflow divider is placed roughly in the center of the inlet, as shown by the upper arrow.
On the Mabotech intercooler, the lower edge of the end tank continues the line from the IC core rather than angling upward, as shown by the lower arrow.
Another difference is the location of the inlet airflow divider, which is offset from the center of the Mabotech end tank inlet, as shown by the upper arrow.
There is also a bump inside the Mabotech inlet around the 1 o’clock position, which is not present on the AliExpress intercooler.
These differences show that these are not the same intercoolers.
Questioned again:
Another person questions Jason’s conclusion and requests that he prove the products are the same:
Jason’s response starts with:
I have eyes and can see.
Jason Ray
Jason’s dismissal of the request for evidence prevents constructive discussion and underscores a reliance on his initial perception rather than objective evaluation. This indicates confirmation bias, where one seeks to confirm one’s belief rather than evaluate available evidence.
Jason then continues by saying:
You prove that they’re different
Jason Ray
This response exemplifies the burden of proof fallacy, where the claimant improperly shifts the responsibility of providing evidence onto others.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.
Jason Ray has the burden of proof and must provide evidence to support his claim. Instead, he tries to shift this responsibility to others, demanding they prove him wrong.
Logical fallacies:
This discussion highlights the problems caused by logical fallacies.
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid; in this example, the logical fallacy is a hasty generalization.
A hasty generalization occurs when a broad conclusion derives from scant evidence or insufficient data.
An example of the bandwagon effect is shown when somebody claims that “they are literally identical,” even though they are not. (26 charge air rows do not equal 27 charge air rows, nor does 25 lbs equal 30 lbs., among other differences)
When pressed to prove the claim, the person who made the post exhibits confirmation bias and invokes another logical fallacy, the burden of proof, and fails to provide evidence supporting their claim.
Combating misinformation:
This discussion underscores the importance of consumer vigilance in fact-checking claims, particularly when sourcing information from social media, where misinformation is easily spread.
Verify claims with credible sources, look for objective evidence, such as specifications and test results, and avoid relying solely on visual similarities.
Conclusions:
A social media post inaccurately alleged that the Mabotech brand intercooler was a rebranded product from AliExpress. The person making this post was mistaken, as the above evidence shows.
The person who made the post misled Bryan L. and numerous others who viewed it—seemingly scores of people based on the number of responses the post received.
Asking a person to provide evidence in support of a claim is reasonable, and efforts to avoid giving evidence may point to a case where someone is spreading misinformation.
