Fact Checking – Ed Susman Boost Onset Test

Summary:

In response to a post where turbocharger boost onset was tested using different intakes, Equilibrium Tuning owner Ed Susman responded using bullshit to try and discredit the test findings and deceive consumers. This post analyzes the occurrences of Ed’s bullshitting.

Background:

A recent post about a test of the effect of swapping intakes on boost onset showed no difference for the setup I tested.

The test was prompted after reading statements from Equilibrium Tuning owner Ed Susman that changing intakes to a Blaze ATOM produced a boost onset shift using “Vortex and similar bolt-on turbos.”

After I posted the test results, Ed Susman began to spread misleading information about the test, which I will address in this post.

Bullshit Detection:

A method of persuasion that Ed Susman regularly employs is bullshitting.

Bullshit is “something that implies but does not contain adequate meaning or truth.”

Psychology Today

It is important to be on guard for Ed’s use of bullshit, as he frequently will state something as a fact where he lacks support for what he is claiming, or omits essential information, creating misunderstanding.

Test Purpose:

Ed Susman posted the following statements on social media describing the benefits of switching to a Blaze intake for users of “Vortex and similar bolt-on turbos.“

Ed Suman had claimed the potential for an improved boost onset of 100-200 RPM when switching to a Blaze ATOM intake, prompting me to test the claim.

I have a Mabotech M520H in my GTI, which is, to use Ed’s words, a “similar bolt-on turbo.”

For the comparison intake, I selected an APR carbon fiber closed intake and CTS Turbo inlet elbow. Each flows slightly less than the EQT customer’s Unitronic parts, assuring that my vehicle’s intake setup would deliver worse ‘before’ performance than the EQT case baseline.

I conducted a comparison test using my Mk7 GTI to see if the boost onset shifted, but no shift was detected.

Ed’s B.S. Response

Load #1:

After publishing the test results, Ed Susman misrepresented the difference between the Mabotech M520 turbo and “similar bolt-on turbos” by stating, “you used a completely different turbo.” 

The M520 is comparable to the Vortex, which is precisely the type of product Ed had stated the Blaze ATOM benefits.

Additionally, EQT advertises that turbochargers “requiring additional airflow” benefit from using the Blaze intake.

Ed would cite without evidence the 2 mm diameter difference in the M520’s compressor inducer as a meaningful contributing factor to the different results.

When I asked if he had evidence:

Do you have evidence to support a conclusion that the size difference between the Mabotech M520 and Vortex is a significant contributing factor causing a shift of the boost onset curve by 100-200 RPM, yes or no?

Jeff

Rather than answering the question, Ed began bullshitting, using Deflection and the Burden of Proof fallacy.

Ed falsely stated that I had concluded something about the size difference of the turbochargers. (A Strawman fallacy)

do you have evidence to support your conclusion that the size difference of the turbos makes no difference in your testing? Yes or no?

Ed Susman – Owner of Equilibrium Tuning Inc.

Note: The Burden of Proof logical fallacy is routinely used on social media, where someone makes an unsubstantiated claim and, when questioned, demands that the other person ‘prove me wrong.’

---

Because I have data from boost onset testing over 50 configurations, I played along with Ed’s shifting of the burden of proof. I provided him with evidence that an increase in inducer size from 45 to 51 (13.4%) produced no shift in boost onset, suggesting that a further change from 51 to 53 (3.9%) would not make a 100-200 RPM shift.

Ed dropped from that discussion once evidence calling his bluff was presented.

Load #2:

I selected an APR carbon fiber closed intake and CTS Turbo inlet elbow as the intake parts for my baseline data collection.

I knew both performed worse than the components used by the EQT customer and thus would overstate the benefits of changing to the Blaze ATOM intake. If anything, I was setting the Blaze ATOM up to look good by comparing it with low-flow intake parts.

Ed failed to acknowledge this point when referring to the test, instead calling the intake setup a “completely different intake setup“, without demonstrating why this difference would have changed the observed outcome.

Load #3:

Throughout the discussion with me and other consumers, Ed repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding of the term ‘scientific’.

Scientific – practicing or using thorough or systematic methods.

Merriam-Webster.com

The test I performed compared boost onset using a Mk7 GTI with no changes made to the vehicle other than the intake components. The test was carried out for both products in the same location, following the same process, within 90 minutes, and twenty-five (25) data points were logged with each intake.

In Ed’s response, he would repeatedly misuse the word ‘scientific.’

The first example of this is his claim that “trying to draw conclusions about completely different hardware is hardly scientific.” Comparing performance using different hardware has nothing to do with whether or not the comparison incorporated scientific practices.

In the following example, Ed continues to misuse the word ‘scientific’ and falsely states that I conducted a test to “try to contradict data” that Ed had used in the product promotion.

Probable Cause:

Ed Susman’s use of bullshit to try and discredit evidence that supported a different conclusion about the effect of the Blaze ATOM Race intake demonstrates a lack of sincerity for providing good information to consumers.

While there were differences in the outcomes, the hardware used was unlikely to be the cause. The more likely cause of the difference was the process used by the EQT customer and Ed Susman’s analysis of the customer’s data logs.

EQT’s customer was not conducting a boost onset comparison test. They were having their car tuned by EQT, and as Ed Susman stated in his original observations, he “noticed” a shift in the RPM. This observation is accurately described as serendipity.

Serendipity – The faculty or phenomenon of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for.

Merriam-Webster.com

Without conducting a purposeful test, the likelihood of a procedural error or uncontrolled conditions is higher. Ironically, EQT’s data was not collected in a ‘scientific‘ manner.

Another issue with the EQT data is that one data point for each configuration was compared.  From a ‘scientific‘ standpoint, using one data point for comparison was negligent for supporting a performance claim that would be part of a product promotion.

Conclusions:

Ed Susman’s bullshitting in connection with his business at Equilibrium Tuning Inc. is a pattern that has been observed for several years. It presents a serious problem for consumers trying to make decisions based on good information.

When consumers interact with Ed Susman they must be on guard for bullshit. Ed is an experienced bullshitter who regularly employs various deceptive techniques to mislead consumers.

References:

The following are links to other 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.
• Ed Susman bullshits a consumer regarding software tuning.