"How zMAX Micro-lubricant survives the maze of chemical claims”
First, it is important to define the category Chemicals especially since the OEMs have been campaigning against a good portion of the category in recent years.
Additives: Fifty years ago when Bardahl, Wynn's and a few others were born as “pour in your engine” and fuel tank products they were unchallenged in the market. There were engine wear problems then, and these chemicals greatly convinced the consumers that the engine oils where inferior therefore, their scientifically untested elixir was desperately needed. If the consumer owned a certain engine type with known crankshaft bearing problems, you would change your oil with a popular brand of 30-Weight oil and put a can of "make it run better elixir" in the engine. In colder climates, you would most likely put “Heet” in the fuel tank to prevent a frozen fuel line.
Today, the wholesalers, distributors and counter people have to face Chemical Roulette. Engine, radiator and transmission flush products, “friction-lowering” engine oil additives, detergent and solvent chemicals that de-carbonize this and that, fuel tank and injector cleaners, "better mileage" products, and on and on. There has to be 50 or more products on the shelf in the additive, flush and clean categories.
When the consumer approaches the automotive-chemical isle, vertigo is easily experienced. Whatever sells the best gets front row position, rarely does the question, “does it work”, come into play. Does the counter person know the quality of these products? In most cases the answer is, “no”, nor does he or she care. They may just tell you, "go read the information on the label,” Why? The answer is quite simple.
The counter person cannot take the time to educate himself or herself or go through a litany of explanation on 50 different products. Bottom Line: Whichever product has the best advertising, the best sales force, the best shelf position, is the winner, regardless whether or not the product “really works.”
Today's engine oils are excellent performers. Synthetics and efficient engine oil additive packages such as GF-4 and now GF-5 API approved categories have almost eliminated the need for the use of aftermarket engine additives. Yet with today's still prevalent engine, piston and combustion chamber carbon problems, fuel tank and injector cleaners are good movers, and necessary. Transmission flushing, the OEM's say, "don't do it". They recommend “exchanging” the oil and changing the filter only. Now transmissions are being sealed for 100,000 miles before the oil change is even required. Engine flush products border on consumer fraud. With today’s high brake component temperatures, OEM's are now saying that brake fluid flushing is a good thing.
How can counter people sell products easier, and sell something that will help their customers? The answer is educating them better on products and a true understanding of a product’s performance by SAE, ASTM and API testing protocols.
There are products that claim, “Better fuel mileage,” and they mislead the consumers by showing a typical “ball bearing test.” A ball bearing test does not represent an engine. To scientifically test a product concerning fuel economy the proper test is the SAE J1321, Procedure I or II fuel economy test. Cost of this test is about $80,000. zMAX performed three of these tests to prove its claims of “better mileage.” If a company is going to make less friction or more horsepower claims, they must be asked, “Where is their API, SAE or ASTM Laboratory or Field (vehicle) Engine Tests that should be behind every such claim?” When the FTC filed lawsuits against several of the major aftermarket engine products several years back, the only product that passed the SAE and ASTM testing requirements to say “saves fuel” was zMAX. If you read the label on the zMAX box, it explains it all. How many counter people are aware of that fact? Unfortunately, very few know what it takes to make a fuel economy claim. How many products are being falsely advertised? Plenty! If you ask them for their ASTM, SAE tests that support their claims, you will be surprised about the invalid ball bearing tests that they will quote, not certified SAE or ASTM vehicle or lab engine tests that is required.
Why SAE, ASTM testing? The OEM's spend millions of dollars with major oil company's and additive company's such as Lubrizol, Ethyl Corp, Infineon, Orinite and others, developing additive packages that are blended to their specific base oils. These special blended engine oil formulas receive a specific API Certification. By adding an off-the-shelf additive into your engine oil that may contain solids like PTFE, Moly (MoS2), graphite, etc., and/or chemicals like zinc, phosphorous (in combination as Zinc Dialkyl Dithio Phosphate, better known as ZDDP anti-wear additive) and chlorine (chlorinated paraffin extreme pressure “EP” additives, etc.,) will alter that oil formula and voids the API Certification. Why? The simple answer is that without additional SAE, ASTM and API testing with the new addition of solids or chemicals, you do not know how the newly modified oil’s performance has been compromised. This is the concern of the API and OEM’s. Without further testing, any claim of wear reduction or enhanced performance would have to be deemed misleading. This is the main reason auto manufacturers state in their Owners Handbook that, "We highly recommend that you do not use additives in the engine.” What the counter person or consumer should know is that zMAX is not an additive; zMAX is a pure Micro-Lubricant that treats the metal, not the oil or fuel. Its main characteristic is that it "soaks into the metal 100 times deeper than regular engine oil, additives, detergents or solvents can." Being a pure lubricant without PTFE, chlorine or other chemicals or solids zMAX has no harmful effect on the original oil’s API Certification, and therefore does not violate that certification.
Distributors, wholesalers and counter people need to be abreast of this required proof of product testing. It is a question of sales ethics for consumer protection. When will the FTC crack down on additive manufacturers again? The fact is that Oil-Chem Research Corporation paid $4.5 million to prove to the FTC that its products have the proper testing to support zMAX’s performance claims. It is also fair to state that zMAX got the FTC wake-up call because of how their claims were advertised, not because of the performance of zMAX. When zMAX products are used as directed in the engine, fuel tank and transmission, performance will be enhanced as claimed and will not embarrass any sales or counter people to their customers. zMAX products are truly tested, and it is the product that REALLY works.
2/10/2006
By: Edward Rachanski, Sr. President Oil-Chem Research Corporation
First, it is important to define the category Chemicals especially since the OEMs have been campaigning against a good portion of the category in recent years.
Additives: Fifty years ago when Bardahl, Wynn's and a few others were born as “pour in your engine” and fuel tank products they were unchallenged in the market. There were engine wear problems then, and these chemicals greatly convinced the consumers that the engine oils where inferior therefore, their scientifically untested elixir was desperately needed. If the consumer owned a certain engine type with known crankshaft bearing problems, you would change your oil with a popular brand of 30-Weight oil and put a can of "make it run better elixir" in the engine. In colder climates, you would most likely put “Heet” in the fuel tank to prevent a frozen fuel line.
Today, the wholesalers, distributors and counter people have to face Chemical Roulette. Engine, radiator and transmission flush products, “friction-lowering” engine oil additives, detergent and solvent chemicals that de-carbonize this and that, fuel tank and injector cleaners, "better mileage" products, and on and on. There has to be 50 or more products on the shelf in the additive, flush and clean categories.
When the consumer approaches the automotive-chemical isle, vertigo is easily experienced. Whatever sells the best gets front row position, rarely does the question, “does it work”, come into play. Does the counter person know the quality of these products? In most cases the answer is, “no”, nor does he or she care. They may just tell you, "go read the information on the label,” Why? The answer is quite simple.
The counter person cannot take the time to educate himself or herself or go through a litany of explanation on 50 different products. Bottom Line: Whichever product has the best advertising, the best sales force, the best shelf position, is the winner, regardless whether or not the product “really works.”
Today's engine oils are excellent performers. Synthetics and efficient engine oil additive packages such as GF-4 and now GF-5 API approved categories have almost eliminated the need for the use of aftermarket engine additives. Yet with today's still prevalent engine, piston and combustion chamber carbon problems, fuel tank and injector cleaners are good movers, and necessary. Transmission flushing, the OEM's say, "don't do it". They recommend “exchanging” the oil and changing the filter only. Now transmissions are being sealed for 100,000 miles before the oil change is even required. Engine flush products border on consumer fraud. With today’s high brake component temperatures, OEM's are now saying that brake fluid flushing is a good thing.
How can counter people sell products easier, and sell something that will help their customers? The answer is educating them better on products and a true understanding of a product’s performance by SAE, ASTM and API testing protocols.
There are products that claim, “Better fuel mileage,” and they mislead the consumers by showing a typical “ball bearing test.” A ball bearing test does not represent an engine. To scientifically test a product concerning fuel economy the proper test is the SAE J1321, Procedure I or II fuel economy test. Cost of this test is about $80,000. zMAX performed three of these tests to prove its claims of “better mileage.” If a company is going to make less friction or more horsepower claims, they must be asked, “Where is their API, SAE or ASTM Laboratory or Field (vehicle) Engine Tests that should be behind every such claim?” When the FTC filed lawsuits against several of the major aftermarket engine products several years back, the only product that passed the SAE and ASTM testing requirements to say “saves fuel” was zMAX. If you read the label on the zMAX box, it explains it all. How many counter people are aware of that fact? Unfortunately, very few know what it takes to make a fuel economy claim. How many products are being falsely advertised? Plenty! If you ask them for their ASTM, SAE tests that support their claims, you will be surprised about the invalid ball bearing tests that they will quote, not certified SAE or ASTM vehicle or lab engine tests that is required.
Why SAE, ASTM testing? The OEM's spend millions of dollars with major oil company's and additive company's such as Lubrizol, Ethyl Corp, Infineon, Orinite and others, developing additive packages that are blended to their specific base oils. These special blended engine oil formulas receive a specific API Certification. By adding an off-the-shelf additive into your engine oil that may contain solids like PTFE, Moly (MoS2), graphite, etc., and/or chemicals like zinc, phosphorous (in combination as Zinc Dialkyl Dithio Phosphate, better known as ZDDP anti-wear additive) and chlorine (chlorinated paraffin extreme pressure “EP” additives, etc.,) will alter that oil formula and voids the API Certification. Why? The simple answer is that without additional SAE, ASTM and API testing with the new addition of solids or chemicals, you do not know how the newly modified oil’s performance has been compromised. This is the concern of the API and OEM’s. Without further testing, any claim of wear reduction or enhanced performance would have to be deemed misleading. This is the main reason auto manufacturers state in their Owners Handbook that, "We highly recommend that you do not use additives in the engine.” What the counter person or consumer should know is that zMAX is not an additive; zMAX is a pure Micro-Lubricant that treats the metal, not the oil or fuel. Its main characteristic is that it "soaks into the metal 100 times deeper than regular engine oil, additives, detergents or solvents can." Being a pure lubricant without PTFE, chlorine or other chemicals or solids zMAX has no harmful effect on the original oil’s API Certification, and therefore does not violate that certification.
Distributors, wholesalers and counter people need to be abreast of this required proof of product testing. It is a question of sales ethics for consumer protection. When will the FTC crack down on additive manufacturers again? The fact is that Oil-Chem Research Corporation paid $4.5 million to prove to the FTC that its products have the proper testing to support zMAX’s performance claims. It is also fair to state that zMAX got the FTC wake-up call because of how their claims were advertised, not because of the performance of zMAX. When zMAX products are used as directed in the engine, fuel tank and transmission, performance will be enhanced as claimed and will not embarrass any sales or counter people to their customers. zMAX products are truly tested, and it is the product that REALLY works.
2/10/2006
By: Edward Rachanski, Sr. President Oil-Chem Research Corporation
