Tunze - False Advertisement?
- Thread starter tkeracer619
- Start date
- Status
tkeracer619
New member
Its been 2 days since you found out. It has not been 2 days since tunze found out. They have at a minimum known for a week or two and maybe from the start given their statement that they have confirmed the results and already started on a fix.
I think you're wrong. I just purchased a MP40 a few months back, and owned a MP10 since it's release. I seriously considered going with Tunze when I upgraded, but opted to stick with Vortechs. Right now, I'd be seriously annoyed if I had opted to change.
Disregarding the performance, I'd be annoyed that I bought something that wasn't as advertised. Not even a bit off, but way off what was advertised. People are going to be upset, and in my opinion they are justified. You're talking about very expensive pumps here.
I know it's not a perfect analogy, but if you bought an expensive watch, wore it for years and then found out years later it was a replica/fake, wouldn't you be ****ed off? What you're suggesting is that just because it kept time and you were happy with it's performance you have no reason to be annoyed that you were duped (knowingly or unknowingly it doesn't matter).
Great analogy!
Best guess? Hydor used some expensive equipment (like the tests in the article) or had a better algorithm for estimating flow. :headwally:
Ken Hahn
New member
I manage three product design engineering teams.
If the main spec of one of our products as its major selling point was to produce X amount of something that made it the leading such device in the industry and we charged a premium for that industry leading performance, but we designed and shipped a product that in fact only produced half the advertised amount of X, that would be a significant problem and we would be expected to (and would have no recourse but to) correct it on our dime.
Missing a spec by 10% might be a simple error or Marketing optimism and perhaps not enough to affect its intended usage, but missing it by 50% is simply inexcusable. It wouldn't take a real expensive or sophisticated setup to realize that you are only putting out half of what you thought. Correcting it only after someone else points it out to you is also not a sign of how great a company it is either. What other choice would they have if they wanted to stay in business? The proof will be in how they treat their existing customers in making the product that they already paid top dollar for right.
If they continue to knowingly market the product under the old specs even though they have acknowledged that they are false, they would be opening themselves up to possible legal action. If they think they can quickly double the output through some slight tweaks to the design and keep on running with no one noticing, I would be skeptical at best.
If a company cannot afford the equipment to adequately test the products they design, they should outsource that work. There is no way a company should publish industry leading critical product specs that are the main reason that people purchase the product based on theoretical calculations without empirically testing those specs in the final design.
If the main spec of one of our products as its major selling point was to produce X amount of something that made it the leading such device in the industry and we charged a premium for that industry leading performance, but we designed and shipped a product that in fact only produced half the advertised amount of X, that would be a significant problem and we would be expected to (and would have no recourse but to) correct it on our dime.
Missing a spec by 10% might be a simple error or Marketing optimism and perhaps not enough to affect its intended usage, but missing it by 50% is simply inexcusable. It wouldn't take a real expensive or sophisticated setup to realize that you are only putting out half of what you thought. Correcting it only after someone else points it out to you is also not a sign of how great a company it is either. What other choice would they have if they wanted to stay in business? The proof will be in how they treat their existing customers in making the product that they already paid top dollar for right.
If they continue to knowingly market the product under the old specs even though they have acknowledged that they are false, they would be opening themselves up to possible legal action. If they think they can quickly double the output through some slight tweaks to the design and keep on running with no one noticing, I would be skeptical at best.
If a company cannot afford the equipment to adequately test the products they design, they should outsource that work. There is no way a company should publish industry leading critical product specs that are the main reason that people purchase the product based on theoretical calculations without empirically testing those specs in the final design.
James77
Team RC
Yes....a price jump on NEW pumps.
James77
Team RC
How do you know they new from day one. You keep on saying this, so back it up a little please. These car analogies you give are silly at best. We are simply talking overestimated flow. They have admitted they screwed up here, and are going to correct it.
There must be a way of testing. Not only did Hydor get it pretty close but others have as well 10%. But tunze was way off.
JG1
New member
You speak with such certainty. Did you confirm this with Roger?
bluereefs
New member
If I remember corectly, hydor pumps are Chinese pumps, at least smaller models are/was sunsun wavemaker, cheap wavemaker what can be buyed in Ebay for few bucks. Dont know exactly who made bigger models but probably same factory.
James77
Team RC
You and the poster I was quoting speak eith the same certainty. Did you? The poster I am quoting also seems pretty damn sure tunze knowingly deceived us form say one with these pumps....lets see that backed up.
The quote in question from Roger:
The pumps will cost more to build. So in the END the pumps price will have to increase. Existing owners already paid the price.
From that quote:
Having dealt with Roger and seeing his exemplary customer serveice for many years, I am taking this as existing owners will be taken care of for nothing. I may be wrong, but the odds are that the former will happen.
The original 6105s were noisy, and had a couple different changes to them...new impellers and new voltage chips. Also had silence brackets...I PAID FOR NONE OF THESE FROM TUNZE. Why would it be any different now? Did these things ultimately make the price of the pump jump? I am sure they did.....see what the quote is meaning now about the price increase?
Last edited:
d0ughb0y
Active member
Options for Tunze
1. Do nothing
Not a good option for obvious reasons. Ecotech is already taking advantage of this situation.
2. No change to product, just update the packaging and manuals to show the lower "standardized" pump rating.
Not a good option either. Consumers compare different brands by the rating spec. Obviously people will go with the one with a stronger GPH rating.
3. Do a retrofit.
This is what they announced the action they are taking. Problem is, 6 months is too long. By that time, there will be eroded market share. As mentioned in 1, Ecotech is already taking advantage of this to gain as much market share as they can. Tunze should do this faster. The retrofit is pretty much what people who mod their tunzes are already doing, they cut the grills at the back (intake) and front, remove the shroud (if thats what its called) inside the front half cover, and cut short the nozzle. its not something new, they are pretty much just making the mod official.
People have a wild imagination, you can label a product rated at X GPH, and people will think it is rated at X GPH. Its no different that Verizon keeps pounding into your head that they are number one that eventually people think they are number one even though in reality they are number two. Tunze should know better not to rate the product based on theoretical value, as we are not going to use the pump in a theoretical aquarium. That for sure is asking for trouble, and it was just a matter of time someone point that out. Sure they contend that the rating is correct for the method used, its like giving a car MPG rating of 100miles per gallon but testing it by rolling the car downhill. The rating is correct for the method used, no?
I think Tunze needs to do more serious damage control quicker than what they are currently doing. They probably won't go out of business because of this, but you never know.
1. Do nothing
Not a good option for obvious reasons. Ecotech is already taking advantage of this situation.
2. No change to product, just update the packaging and manuals to show the lower "standardized" pump rating.
Not a good option either. Consumers compare different brands by the rating spec. Obviously people will go with the one with a stronger GPH rating.
3. Do a retrofit.
This is what they announced the action they are taking. Problem is, 6 months is too long. By that time, there will be eroded market share. As mentioned in 1, Ecotech is already taking advantage of this to gain as much market share as they can. Tunze should do this faster. The retrofit is pretty much what people who mod their tunzes are already doing, they cut the grills at the back (intake) and front, remove the shroud (if thats what its called) inside the front half cover, and cut short the nozzle. its not something new, they are pretty much just making the mod official.
People have a wild imagination, you can label a product rated at X GPH, and people will think it is rated at X GPH. Its no different that Verizon keeps pounding into your head that they are number one that eventually people think they are number one even though in reality they are number two. Tunze should know better not to rate the product based on theoretical value, as we are not going to use the pump in a theoretical aquarium. That for sure is asking for trouble, and it was just a matter of time someone point that out. Sure they contend that the rating is correct for the method used, its like giving a car MPG rating of 100miles per gallon but testing it by rolling the car downhill. The rating is correct for the method used, no?
I think Tunze needs to do more serious damage control quicker than what they are currently doing. They probably won't go out of business because of this, but you never know.
Last edited:
What the test doesn't show is that the 6025/6045/6055/6065 etc are all within 10% of their specified GPH ratings. The test only showed the worst of the worst, which happen to be pretty large pumps.
James77
Team RC
Roger has said the correction for the 6105- by far the most popular pump- will happen in 1-2 months. Keep in mind new designs have to be toyed with, molds made, product made, and shipped overseas.
Not sure on the verizon thing
. I can honestly say I was shocked the flow was that much less than they said it was. I have had the 6105 and MP40 side by side, and would have said the MP40 was weaker. That is even with the wider nozzle of the 6205 on the 6105....maybe that eased sme of the restricton on the outlet?I don't know but the fact that Tunze missed the stated flow ratings by so much on the 6305 and the inflated number just happened to be slightly more than that particular product's arch rival, the MP60, makes me wonder how accidental this all was. Add to this near identical pricing between the MP60 and 6305 it all makes me wonder if the marketing department needed numbers to justify placement in the market so the engineers gave them best theoretical numbers possible to make them happy. The numbers, price and flow, between the products are all too close to have been accidental.
I guess.... if you don't account for the "point anywhere" design or the near silent operation and you are JUST considering flow. But to me, the fact you can't really aim a VorTech puts me off.. I can't put them on a diagonal path or anything. maybe nobody but me cares?
- Status
Similar threads
