Background:
Just over a year ago, I compared several popular Stage 2 tunes for the Mk7 GTI. One noteworthy finding was how some of the tunes altered the Knock Sensor Thresholds, aka ‘numbing the knock sensors.’
Amongst the Cobb-based tunes, Cobb and Stratified Auto retained an OEM level of safety, whereas Equilibrium Tuning (EQT) raised these thresholds up to 150% above the OEM safety levels.
From a consumer perspective, this information helps compare products and determine which suits a person’s goals.
I recently encountered a consumer who referenced these findings and observed Ed Susman, the owner of EQT, misleading the consumer.
In the past, I have shown many examples of Ed Susman using logical fallacies, false statements, and bullshit, to mislead consumers. (See references below.). In this post, I will examine the latest example of Ed’s deceptive interaction with a consumer.
Preparation:
Understanding Ed Susman’s techniques to mislead consumers will help people be on guard for this deception.
Logical Fallacies:
A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed.
Some examples of logical fallacies that we will see Ed employ are Ad Hominem (Personal Attack), Appeal to Ignorance, Strawman, Red Herring, and Bandwagon.
Lack of Evidence:
A responsible seller should engage with the specific concern, provide technical details about their products, and offer real-world evidence.
Exchange Analysis:
The exchange begins with the consumer stating:
I seen some videos and reviews about Stratified as well. Those who went with that tune claim their reason was it was for a daily driver and the knock sensor was still under oem safety specs where EQT was more aggressive.
Kurt (Consumer)
While I did not see the original comments, Stratified indeed has a more conservative tune than EQT, as evidenced from the Dyno Summary, and the Street Summary datalogs.
Ed Susman then replies to the consumer with the following misleading statements:
This all came from a certain someone who has a personal vendetta against EQT. He knows little to nothing about tuning and made significant conclusions from data he doesn’t understand. The reliably track record of our customers speaks for itself in the end.
Ed Susman – Owner of Equilibrium Tuning Inc.
Ed has just unloaded a pile of bullshit on this consumer. The response contains several logical fallacies and problematic tactics:
Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Ed dismisses concerns by attacking the credibility of the data source (Me) rather than addressing the actual issue:
“This all came from a certain someone who has a personal vendetta against EQT.”
Instead of discussing the software’s technical merits, he attempts to discredit the source of the information.
Appeal to Ignorance
The claim that the data source (Me) “knows little to nothing about tuning” suggests that only experts can evaluate the data, without proving that my conclusions are incorrect.
Straw Man Argument
Ed misrepresents the data source’s (My) position by implying that the conclusions are based on a lack of understanding, rather than engaging with the actual concerns about safety system modifications.
Red Herring
By shifting the focus to the data source’s (My) alleged vendetta, Ed diverts attention away from the core safety concern.
The real issue for this consumer is whether the software changes OEM safety features, not the data source’s (My) motivations.
Bandwagon
“The reliability track record of our customers speaks for itself in the end.”
Just because some customers have used the product without apparent failures doesn’t mean it is safe. This ignores the possibility of unreported failures or long-term risks.
Lack of Evidence
Ed Susman does not provide any data or technical explanation to refute the concern, relying instead on vague reassurances.
A transparent and truthful response would include evidence showing how their tuning approach affects engine safety features.
Conclusions:
Rather than making deflections, Ed Susman should address the consumer’s specific concern. There are several potential reasons why Ed is bullshitting Kurt (consumer), including:
- To avoid accountability.
- To make EQTs product appear more favorable.
- To increase sales and profits.
Regardless of the motivation, this type of misleading conduct is not helpful for consumers who are trying to identify a product to meet their needs.
When evaluating products or services, especially technical ones like automotive engine tuning, watch out for responses that deflect rather than inform.
A red flag is a vendor dismissing concerns by attacking independent data sources, avoiding direct answers, or relying on vague popularity claims.
References:
The following are links to examples of detailed reviews of unethical conduct by EQT:
- 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.
Jeff, I’ve been in the MK7 community for years, you and Ed remind me of Zelenskyy and Putin…you both have a REAL hard-on for eachother. I mean this 100% objectively and with no skin in the game, but at times you both have come off as condescending, obnoxious assholes. You both should agree to disagree and move on, his business isn’t going anywhere and you are never going to stop heckling him.
Ed effectively created the thorn in his own side (you) by continuing to respond to and going back and forth with you regarding your insight and reviews on his products and services. I personally would have ignored them and not entertained them; but by him rising to the occasion/challenge he then effectively breathed “life” aka validity or the perception of it into them and provided you with the stimulus you desired which in turn gave you the “greenlight” and platform to continue. I imagine this was largely driven by Ed’s pride which has been put on full-display for anyone that has known him/dealt with him to see and speaks for itself, not a dig, not a compliment, just an observation.
If people are going to keep buying his product, then so be it, in the words of PT Barnum, “theres a sucker born every minute.” Life is hard, it’s harder for stupid people, if they’re buying snake oil let them figure it out millions of people do it daily.
Conversely, if you have all this knowledge inside you brother, then, I challenge you to do the capitalistic American thing here and start your own company, putting out and bringing out quality, proven products, in the spirit of healthy competition with the best-interests of the enthusiast community in mind and put ED out of business it sounds MUCH easier than it is.
There is enough negativity and “bullshit” as you say in going on in the world to keep this feud (at the end of the day that is what this is, so let’s call it what it is) that has been going on for years going.
I’m just trying to be a peacemaker here, I’m not for EQT because while I admire Ed’s passion and dedication and the tenacity it takes to be a successful entrepreneur, I have observed that he at times believes he’s the smartest guy in the room and can be condescending and dismissive with a touch of napoleon syndrome when challenged/ triggered I’ve seen him “cancel” people and consumers of his that have had and voiced legitimate concerns.
I am also not for you Jeff, I’ve seen your comments rattling your saber and banging your soapbox in the town square that is the public forum of the internet but you don’t offer an opinion for public consumption and let others draw their own conclusions, you GIVE others an opinion and any scrutiny of your opinion is at times met with dismissal and contempt, and you can come off as obnoxious. I sincerely appreciate the work you do, it takes a lot of effort and is fascinating but at the end of the day, it’s is not in a calibrated laboratory setting therefore the margin of error increases exponentially which could be a small or large margin in real-world numbers depending on what you are measuring at any given point in time.
I’ll tell you who I AM for I am for AMERICA and the enthusiast community, and we would ALL benefit from you both investing and dedicating your passion, intelligence, and time to better, more forward thinking endeavors rather than continuing to wage a verbal war that I can only imagine is exhausting for you both for a platform that was launched in 2014 more than 10 years ago…
I appreciate your perspective and your attempt to bring peace to what you perceive as a personal conflict. However, this is not about a feud—it’s about consumer awareness and holding businesses accountable for their claims. When a company like EQT misleads customers, dismisses valid concerns, and manipulates its fanbase to suppress criticism, that’s worth discussing.
Ignoring bad business practices doesn’t make them go away, and ‘let the suckers figure it out’ isn’t a responsible approach when people are spending their hard-earned money based on manipulated perceptions. Transparency matters, not just for consumers, but for ethical businesses. When EQT misleads customers while avoiding accountability, it doesn’t just hurt those who buy into the deception, it also creates an unfair playing field for businesses that operate with honesty and integrity. Companies that provide reliable, well-engineered products must compete against a business prioritizing marketing spin over actual performance, making it harder for consumers to recognize quality.
It’s also worth noting that EQT’s practices aren’t just being questioned by a random internet commentator. They are being reviewed by someone with a professional background in ensuring products meet consumer needs, someone whose expertise lies in evaluating performance, reliability, and the accuracy of claims. When someone with relevant experience raises concerns, it shouldn’t be dismissed as mere ‘heckling.’
The suggestion that I should ‘just start my own company’ misses the point. Independent scrutiny is valuable, whether or not someone is selling a competing product. Consumers deserve information to make informed decisions, and dismissing concerns by reducing them to a ‘feud’ only benefits those who want to avoid accountability.
If people would rather not engage in these discussions, that’s their choice, but dismissing consumer advocacy as mere negativity helps no one except those who prefer to operate without scrutiny.