Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
rdalek: ...This is the sort of thing people do when they can no longer argue with the facts that have been shown. If you continue down this path, you will be on the ignore list with the name caller as well...


We know why you placed certain people on your ignore list and it's because you have not been able to respond with any scientific facts to support yours or Dave5358's statements, Dale.

Therefore, I can only ascertain that neither you nor he understand the technological aspects of this case.


I agree.


I second that.

He does not understand the technology issues, nor the legal issues, nor doe he understand sarcasm.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
No matter how many times he pushes the same line, that doesn't make his claims any more accurate,


This is quoted for truth. Now watch what happens next.


I'm still waiting for you guys to do something. Try filing a complaint with the FTC for example. Heck, do something besides continuing to post a opinion that has no fact that changes a thing.

One more time for folks who like to see actual documents that prove something.

This time I am going to do this with pictures. Maybe folks can figure that out better. This is from the settlement of the lawsuit. I posted a link to that the other day I think. If needed, I can repost it. This is the relevant portions of the documents.

That is where Zmax informed the court and the FTC what claims were going to be made and referenced the documents that prove the claims are correct. As in a lot of cases, the tests are confidential but that does not make them false.

This is part of the reply from the FTC.

As you can see from that letter, the FTC reviewed the claims that ZMax was going to make, the test results that shows them to be within the law and then says that with those claims no action would be required. In other words, the claims are supported based on test results and the FTC is fine with those claims. Also note, a few of the claims are as listed below. Please pardon any typo as I am typing it in manually.

Quote:
zMAX soaks into the metal
zMAX reduces friction
zMAX increases horsepower
zMAX dissipates engine heat


Again, Zmax provided proof to the FTC and court that shows that to be correct. There are other claims that were also approved but the first one is the one that people still have the opinion is not true. Well, the FTC and the court says that it is and until someone can change that court order, it is just what the FTC and the court says it is.

I plan to repost that so that people that see this thread can see some actual court documented proof instead of the opinion of a few people with not one thing that proves it wrong.

Your turn.

 

[dave1251]

I second this.

 

[dave1251]

You do understand. I have explained everything in my previous post. Re-posting the same post from the FTC database does not invalidate my position.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
I second this.


Third it.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
You do understand. I have explained everything in my previous post. Re-posting the same post from the FTC database does not invalidate my position.


Seconded.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
You do understand. I have explained everything in my previous post. Re-posting the same post from the FTC database does not invalidate my position.


You do not understand. Nothing you have posted proves that the court and the FTC are wrong. You can post whatever you want to try and change the subject or wiggle around the issue but nothing you posted changes the fact that the FTC is allowing ZMax to make those claims because they were proven in court. It is listed right there in the court documents one claim at a time and lists the references to the documents they provided that proves it.

Until you can provide either test results or a document from the FTC that it reconsidered the information provided in that settlement and is making Zmax stop making the claims, nothing has changed. Nothing. That settlement is still the final word.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Again, none of that changes the facts. The court and the FTC has seen sufficient evidence that proves Zmax can make the claims it does.

This is where the it get interesting for the supporters. The FTC made that determination. The FTC can not issue an injunction unless there is definitive proof the product can not meet advertised claims. If zmax can meet the claim during one test then it can be claimed. Also there is no criteria and baseline for the claims. Notice zmax does not say it improves motor oil. It does not claim it outperforms motor oil. It does not claim you can use it in place of motor oil as in substitute 5 quarts of motor oil for 5 quarts of zmax. Zmax can not make claims like this because it is just refined oil.


That the FTC allows Oil-Chem to make the claims does not mean that they are endorsed by the FTC. It also does not mean that they are accurate.

The FTC does not endorse *any* product, That is not their function.

Their claims are generic, except for the physics/chemistry defying soak into metal one.

 

[MolaKule]

Making claims verses proving them is still something rdalek and others still don't get.

Making claims does not equal proof.

Allowing Zmax to make the claims was done blindly by the FTC when they stated,

Quote:
...The staff has concluded, on the assumption that such information is accurate and complete, that no compliance would be merited if the order is entered...


Again, this is an admission by the FTC that they, the commission, never verified any of the claims to be true by any outside parties.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Again, none of that changes the facts. The court and the FTC has seen sufficient evidence that proves Zmax can make the claims it does.

This is where the it get interesting for the supporters. The FTC made that determination. The FTC can not issue an injunction unless there is definitive proof the product can not meet advertised claims. If zmax can meet the claim during one test then it can be claimed. Also there is no criteria and baseline for the claims. Notice zmax does not say it improves motor oil. It does not claim it outperforms motor oil. It does not claim you can use it in place of motor oil as in substitute 5 quarts of motor oil for 5 quarts of zmax. Zmax can not make claims like this because it is just refined oil.


That the FTC allows Oil-Chem to make the claims does not mean that they are endorsed by the FTC. It also does not mean that they are accurate.

The FTC does not endorse *any* product, That is not their function.

Their claims are generic, except for the physics/chemistry defying soak into metal one.


The FTC in that letter did not endorse anything. The letter acknowledged that the FTC received the information that proves the claims are correct. That's not a endorsement, it is stating what was proven.

 

[Trajan]

Where are the tests you ran that back your claim Zmax does what you say it does? You want tests run that prove it doesn't work, even though that has been done by the person you demand it of.

So when will you do your tests?

Parroting Oil-Chem claims are not tests that prove anything.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Their claims are generic


This has more meaning than anything else. Notice no performance improvements over motor oils, gasoline, diesel, or even air.

This should answer the question. Is Z-Max worth a [censored]? Let alone 40 dollars.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
No. It was an futile attempt for you to learn this. Common sense is a product that is nothing but refined oil is not worth 40 dollars a quart and it does not benefit the operation of an internal combustion engine that has the correct OEM recommended oil in use. Where have I seen this before? Lack of harm does not mean proof of benefit.
Common Sense.


Again, that is your OPINION. It is not a fact. It still does not answer that question or dispute the court or the FTC. Common sense is supported by what I have said all along. The court record shows that the FTC knows what Zmax is claiming and to this day has not challenged them. Common sense says the FTC is in the same boat as you, can't prove it doesn't do what it says it does.

Try again tho. I'll keep posting until you either start posting something that proves the court and the FTC wrong or you accept the facts. Which is it? I plan to be around the rest of the day and will be back online later tonight as well.


Common sense would say that if you call for someone to do tests that it does not work, then you should take set the example and do tests that it does.

Something you fail at over and over.

Any one with common sense would realize that no company that promotes its product will ever admit that it can't do what they claim.

Your product does *not* "soak" into metal. It certainly does not *diffuse* into metal. The rest doesn't do anything that fully formulated motor oil does not.

Why spend $39.99 for this product when you can get 5 quarts of real motor oil and Gumout Regane for less money?.


Had to add the word not after does......

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Where are the tests you ran that back your claim Zmax does what you say it does? You want tests run that prove it doesn't work, even though that has been done by the person you demand it of.

So when will you do your tests?

Parroting Oil-Chem claims are not tests that prove anything.


I did not say it does anything. I said the proof was provided in court and to the FTC. If you want to say it does not do what it claims when a court and the FTC says it does, then the burden of proof is on you. Please, stop telling me it is my place to runs tests to prove what has already been proven in court. If you want to claim it doesn't, you test it and you provide the proof.

You guys keep going in circles. I have to keep saying the same thing in response to every post you make. The claims were proven in court and with the FTC. Either YOU prove otherwise or file a complaint and let the FTC investigate again. Thing is, you can not do the first and will not do the later, both for the same reason, you have no facts to back up your opinion. If you had any facts, you would file the complaint and stop posting here.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Their claims are generic


This has more meaning than anything else. Notice no performance improvements over motor oils, gasoline, diesel, or even air.

This should answer the question. Is Z-Max worth a [censored]? Let alone 40 dollars.


The two box set was on sale when I bought it, ($19.99), but it did *nothing* for me. Don't know how the other dave can twist that to mean I like it though?

 

[Trajan]

Claims are not proof that something works. To repeat said claims over and over will never change that.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
rdalek: Please, stop telling me it is my place to runs tests to prove what has already been proven in court.


Nothing was proven. The FTC nor the court is not the API, nor SWRI, nor a lab that has the expertise to prove anything.

Quote:
...The staff has concluded, on the assumption that such information is accurate and complete, that no compliance would be merited if the order is entered...


A bad assumption not based on proof, and certainly not based on any tribology expertise.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Claims are not proof that something works. To repeat said claims over and over will never change that.




And posting your opinion is not changing the facts either. The court and the FTC said the claims were proven. Unless you can prove otherwise, the court and the FTC still rules the day. I am going to keep saying that until YOU can prove otherwise. I may have to say it 100 times but if that is what it takes, so be it. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Trajan]

Produce the actual tests that prove the claims.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Produce the actual tests that prove the claims.


This would be interesting because allowed by the FTC is not equal to true.