Background:
In a post made on November 26th, I discussed advertisements from three tuning companies that claim their engine software tuning can simultaneously increase engine power output without detracting from engine reliability. I went over the physical challenges of accomplishing this and the legal requirements that companies face when making claims of tune reliability.
In a follow-up post on December 10th, I presented the letter I sent to each company requesting substantiation of the reliability claim. Substantiation is a requirement set by the Federal Trade Commission for companies making objective performance claims about the products they sell.
In this post, I review the responses I received and recommend how consumers should view the claims in light of these companies’ responses.
Company response:
034 Motorsport
The company website provides objective data on ECU-tuned power production compared to the VW GTI stock tune.
There is no data on reliability, and the company’s website does not describe consumer support, including a warranty policy related to tune reliability.
034 Motorsport Response
034 Motorsport uses an automated system to handle initial inquiries. The system asked if I would like to contact their support team, which I requested, but I have not been contacted by anyone from 034 Motorsport.
Equilibrium Tuning (EQT)
Similarly, EQT shows a dyno chart comparing their ECU tune with stock.
Equilibrium Tuning has not provided evidence to substantiate its claims on its website, nor has the company responded to my request for information regarding its advertising claims.
Notably, the company continues to publish advertisements that claim its products have “proven” performance and associate the power increase with safety.
This is despite failing to provide any proof that the tune maintains reliability and is “safe” as advertised.
Integrated Engineering (IE)
Integrated Engineering also provides consumers with dyno charts showing power increases from their tuning.
IE was the only company that responded, providing an explanation of its engine tune development process.
Integrated Engineering described a thorough-sounding process but refused to provide the evidence needed to substantiate a “maintains reliability” claim. Because concrete metrics, such as failure rate or mean time to failure, were withheld as proprietary, the company’s reliability assertion remains unverified and should be treated as marketing.
Conclusions:
Three aftermarket-tune vendors were asked to provide objective evidence for their claim that their software “increases power while maintaining reliability.”
Two vendors didn’t respond at all (034 Motorsports and Equilibrium Tuning). One (Integrated Engineering) replied with a high-level description of the development process but refused to provide the requested verifiable evidence.
Bottom line: the vendors’ marketing does not substantiate the safety/reliability claim. Treat “power + reliability” statements as unverified marketing until a vendor produces the concrete, dated evidence the Federal Trade Commission expects.
