Background:
Equilibrium Tuning’s (EQT) advertising for the Mk8 Blaze ATOM intake continues a deceptive trend started with the product’s introduction on the Mk7, claiming that “testing” has “proven” the Blaze ATOM “has consistently outperformed competitor intake systems“.
EQT makes a qualifying statement about “paired with turbochargers requiring additional airflow.” However, this statement is vague and rooted in EQT’s mismatching of stock-sized inlet adapters to competitor intakes on larger turbos, a subject addressed in the post about the Blaze product timeline.
Blaze vs Competition:
According to EQT, using a Mk8 Golf R with a Stage 1 tune, the Blaze intake and turbo inlet adapter netted an increase of 14 WHP compared to the stock Mk8 intake and turbo inlet adapter.
Gains compared to a fully stock setup are expected since the stock intake and inlet adapter were designed with different goals.
EQT claims the Blaze ATOM has been proven through testing to outperform competitor intakes. The following is a sampling of competitor intakes to compare with the Blaze ATOM.
APR:
APR advertises that their intake for the Mk8 increases power by 11 WHP.
This increase is consistent with the gains from the Blaze ATOM.
Note: This comparison is limited to a single data point reported by the vendors. This is insufficient to rule out run-to-run variance as a factor contributing to the difference; therefore, a ballpark comparison is the best that can be made from the available data.
Eventuri:
Eventuri provides dyno results with their Mk8 intake that show an increase of 20 HP versus the stock intake. This is an “Engine” value and not Wheel; therefore, a reduction of the value by 15% for drivetrain loss is reasonable to approximate WHP, producing a value of 17 WHP.
This is also consistent with the reported values for the APR and Blaze intakes.
Vancity Dyno Test:
A consumer test of intakes was published on the YouTube channel Vancity Audi, comparing a dyno test of Mk8 intakes from 034 Motorsports, CTS Turbo, and APR.
The results measured using Stratified Automotive’s Mustang Dyno are summarized in the table:
| Brand | WHP Gain vs Stock |
|---|---|
| 034 Motorsports | 6 |
| CTS Turbo | 14 |
| APR | 15 |
Note: The 034 Motorsports intake was the only open intake, and the test was conducted with the hood down on the dyno. It’s possible that airflow from the shop fans was not representative of airflow past the vehicle on the road, which could have led the intake to ingest hotter air than the two closed intakes, reducing the peak whp numbers. Based on the similar gains of the other four intakes, I believe this uncontrolled factor impacted the measurement of the 034 intake.
Once again, dyno-measured power gains were similar to those of the Blaze ATOM intake.
Claim Analysis:
Equilibrium Tuning markets the Blaze ATOM intake for the Mk8, promising customers a product that was proven through testing to outperform competitor intakes.
A sampling of competitor-supplied results, along with independent customer testing, raises questions about the truthfulness of the claim.
Equilibrium Tunings reported gains of 14 WHP for the Blaze ATOM, compared to the Mk8 stock intake, are similar to gains from competitor intakes, which produced 11, 17, 14, and 15 WHP.
Conclusions:
The claim by Equilibrium Tuning that the Blaze ATOM intake outperforms competitor intakes is not supported by evidence. On the contrary, dyno test results provided by EQT, its competitors, and a consumer show no difference between the Blaze ATOM and competing intake systems.
This result is consistent with extensive testing performed with the Blaze ATOM intake on the Mk7 GTI, where the intake performed similarly to other aftermarket intakes.
The false claim by Equilibrium Tuning is consistent with the business’s past use of deceptive advertising to market its products. Ironically, the company publishes a dyno chart along with the product that shows the intake doesn’t live up to the company’s claim.
Note on larger turbos:
For any readers who are hanging onto the idea that EQT’s qualification about using a bigger turbo somehow produces dramatically different results. The fact that this doesn’t happen delves into the principles of fluid dynamics, illustrating how EQT capitalizes on technical concepts, counting on consumers being unaware of why their advertising doesn’t make sense.
The Blaze ATOM was compared with the APR PEX intake, Racingling R600 intake, and a modified Mk7 stock intake using a turbo capable of over 500 whp. The Blaze performed the same as the other intakes in street tests.
Extensive flow bench testing has also demonstrated that the Blaze ATOM does not outperform competing intakes.