I humbly believe we on the other side of the planet have been conducting the REAL Rx test. So far more than 72 bottles (3 cases @ A$550-600 a case) have been used in multiple forklifts, large trucks, and a few cars. Forklift and truck owners demand tangible results as their livelihood depends on it. For an engine, a forklift is about as bad as it gets useage wise, very intermittent useage leading to condensation, sludging like you woudn't believe, just generally used and abused. The drivers don't own them so you can imagine oil or coolant levels etc get little attention. Rx results so far are encouraging showing almost clean oil at the 100hr service points (using maint dose), whereas before black as Hades. An amazing change. Drivers are reporting it "seems to run better". The maintenance bills are decreasing and you can be d--- sure owners notice that real quick. Test not finished yet but results so far look very encouraging and we are sure its a commercially viable here even at our highly inflated prices. Now is this a better test than a 'one off' in a street driven vehicle? But be assured nobody can deny we have "put our money where our mouth is" as we say here.
The REAL AutoRx test
- Thread starter sprintman
- Start date
- Status
"GOOD SHOW REGGIE"
Thanks for the input.
Thanks for the input.
Sounds like a solid written testimonial!
I beleive it. I believe you.
Still not scienctific. This is NOT an insult, a doubt, a flame, or whatever. Just a fact.
I use and will continue to use AutoRx, because it works.
I beleive it. I believe you.
Still not scienctific. This is NOT an insult, a doubt, a flame, or whatever. Just a fact.
I use and will continue to use AutoRx, because it works.
Pablo,
This may not be 100% scientific, but its the closest I have seen here. Multiple engines, multiple data points. Beginning to accumulate enough data that one can reject the null hypothesis that arx doesnt work and accept the alternate explanation that it does work.
Much better in terms of testing than a one shot photographic study. It also can be supported on the grounds that the difference percieved (at 100hrs maintenance interval) is due to arx, since nothing else in maintenance routine or manner of use was changed.
Just disagreeing with it not being totally scientific. This is about as scientific as it gets in many instances, and more data points than are used to certify some medicines as safe. Some medicines have a test group of less than 5 data points and are put on the market. Reading info on medicine can be a scary thing.
Dan
[ August 11, 2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]
This may not be 100% scientific, but its the closest I have seen here. Multiple engines, multiple data points. Beginning to accumulate enough data that one can reject the null hypothesis that arx doesnt work and accept the alternate explanation that it does work.
Much better in terms of testing than a one shot photographic study. It also can be supported on the grounds that the difference percieved (at 100hrs maintenance interval) is due to arx, since nothing else in maintenance routine or manner of use was changed.
Just disagreeing with it not being totally scientific. This is about as scientific as it gets in many instances, and more data points than are used to certify some medicines as safe. Some medicines have a test group of less than 5 data points and are put on the market. Reading info on medicine can be a scary thing.
Dan
[ August 11, 2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]
Dan a good thing about RX is it's a 'green' product which is good for everybody.
- Status
Similar threads
