Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

[MolaKule]

Quote:
It is a fact that when one technical user of this forum was challenged to simply obtain the FAA approval, application materials, test results submitted, etc. - public documents that he should be able to understand, but which might be less interesting to laymen - he not only declined but reacted with a rather bizarre rant that a "non-technical government agency fell for innuendos and pseudo-scientific claims". I wonder how he knows that FAA approval was decided based on "innuendos and pseudo-scientific claims"? I mean, without seeing the documentation they submitted?


Bizzare rants are only being expounded by the baiter and
arch-supporter of Oil-Chem, who is taking responses out of context.

That statement about a "non-technical government agency" was referring to the FTC's lack of proper technical expertise to make a sensible determination in the matter, a response to a statement by the arch-supporter of Oil-Chem.

If the arch-supporter had read my previous posts, he would have seen that I stated earlier that I had many technical discussions with the FAA, but at no time did they have tribologists or any other technical person conversant in lubricants or additives.

The FAA is mostly involved with flight control(s), flight parameters, avionics (such as navigation), propulsion, structural integrity, airspace rules, inspections, and the like.

Had the arch-supporter done his research, he would have presented or at least given links to the FAA/Oil-Chem documentation to support his and Oil-Chem's outlandish claims.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
It is a fact that when one technical user of this forum was challenged to simply obtain the FAA approval, application materials, test results submitted, etc. - public documents that he should be able to understand, but which might be less interesting to laymen - he not only declined but reacted with a rather bizarre rant that a "non-technical government agency fell for innuendos and pseudo-scientific claims". I wonder how he knows that FAA approval was decided based on "innuendos and pseudo-scientific claims"? I mean, without seeing the documentation they submitted?


Bizzare rants are only being expounded by the baiter and
arch-supporter of Oil-Chem, who is taking responses out of context.

That statement about a "non-technical government agency" was referring to the FTC's lack of proper technical expertise to make a sensible determination in the matter, a response to a statement by the arch-supporter of Oil-Chem.

If the arch-supporter had read my previous posts, he would have seen that I stated earlier that I had many technical discussions with the FAA, but at no time did they have tribologists or any other technical person conversant in lubricants or additives.

The FAA is mostly involved with flight control(s), flight parameters, avionics (such as navigation), propulsion, structural integrity, airspace rules, inspections, and the like.

Had the arch-supporter done his research, he would have presented or at least given links to the FAA/Oil-Chem documentation to suprort his and Oil-Chem's outlandish claims.


Well said.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Correct the FTC complaint was settled...

The summary published by the company which I stated above was exactly correct - word for word. This case was quite strange in many ways. The Court entered an order which seems really harsh - Oil-Chem Research would have to go to Canterbury each year for a public flogging. But prior to the Court's order, Oil-Chem wrote to the FTC on December 23, 2002 and said this is how we plan to advertise. And on December 26, 2002, the FTC agreed.

This is where the language used in my previous post came from - word for word. Anyone reading this can decide whether it was a victory or not, but Oil-Chem continued to advertise pretty much just as they did before - actually increasing their claims in a few areas. BTW, both of these letters are contained at the very end of the Court's order - the last two documents in a rather long file.

Originally Posted By: dave1251
also the makers of zmax were ordered to pay restitution of one million dollars to parties that purchased zmax prior to the March 20, 2003 ruling.[/B]

This is a complete mischaracterization of what happened. Oil-chem was required to establish a fund and send notices to certain customers (buyers before a certain date) who could then apply for a refund. But Z-max is sold in Walmart and autoparts stores and similar places. It is completely unclear how a Walmart customer would even know about this offer, much less take advantage of it. And, perhaps with the exception of Trajan, customers may have liked the product. It's hard to imagine that many refunds occurred, just by the nature of the mechanism. About the only explanation of this "fund" was that it was a face-saving gesture for the FTC: "See, look what we have done for the consumer".

And note also that we are discussing something that occurred 12 years ago, and which the FTC is now completely out of the picture. Done, finished.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
It is a fact that when one technical user of this forum was challenged to simply obtain the FAA approval, application materials, test results submitted, etc. - public documents that he should be able to understand, but which might be less interesting to laymen - he not only declined but reacted with a rather bizarre rant that a "non-technical government agency fell for innuendos and pseudo-scientific claims". I wonder how he knows that FAA approval was decided based on "innuendos and pseudo-scientific claims"? I mean, without seeing the documentation they submitted?


Bizare rants are only being expounded by the baiter and arch-supporter of Oil-Chem, who is taking responses out of context.

We seem to agree on the 'bizarre rant' part of this

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
That statement about a "non-technical government agency" was referring to the FTC's lack of proper technical expertise to make a sensible determination in the matter, a response to a statement by the arch-supporter of Oil-Chem.

Maybe.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Note that the Avblend folks, who make all of these same claims, were able to convince the FAA.

Since you and others were the one's that appeared to be supporting these claims made by Oil-Chem, I thought maybe you had some new information on the molecular kinetics and thermodynamics of the how, but I see that your using the same old argument that if some non-technical government agency fell for innuendos and pseudo-scientific claims, then you have no new background information that would support these claims, or shed light on the efficacy of this material.

So now it's FTC that is a non-technical agency? It appears that anyone who disagrees with you is non-technical and any evidence contrary to your position is innuendo and pseudo science. It's poor form to trash a government agency just because you don't like their decision or a product or whatever.

True, the FTC has many lawyers on their staff, some of whom have technical backgrounds, some otherwise. They also have staff members or consultants who evaluate technical claims. Both the FTC and Oil-chem were going before a judge to get this resolved. Pretty clearly, the FTC blinked and decided they did not want to go there.

Note that in the December 23, 2002 letter, Oil-chem specified in great detail which reports and tests supported each claim - they were very specific on this. And the FTC said A-OK. So, maybe it wasn't innuendo and psuedo-science after all.

Regarding either the FAA certification or the FTC documentation, how would you know? You clearly haven't looked at the tests or engineering reports submitted to the FTC.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
If the arch-supporter...

I'm an arch-supporter (although I clearly stated I've never used the product, have no plans to do so, etc). The FAA and FTC are both non-technical boob agencies, relying on innuendo and pseudo-science. I guess I'm in good company.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Had the arch-supporter done his research, he would have presented or at least given links to the FAA/Oil-Chem documentation to support his and Oil-Chem's outlandish claims.

Since you clearly have not read either the FAA or FTC documentation, how do you know their claims are outlandish? Grow up, deal with the issues, stop trashing engineers in government agencies and stop trashing anyone who doesn't agree with your own narrow view.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
[
Grow up, deal with the issues, stop trashing engineers in government agencies and stop trashing anyone who doesn't agree with your own narrow view.


So when will you? It's more than clear that you don't know what you're talking about. You can't come up with *anything* that can back up the claims you support.

Molakule knows *exactly* what he's talking about. You do not. Stop baiting.

 

[MolaKule]

Ahhh, he finally admits he is an arch-supporter.

I am thrilled to see an admittance of same.

But why is still a mystery unless, perhaps, he has some vested interest he is not disclosing?

I find it interesting that we have had approx. 12 threads on this product and yet neither the arch-supporter nor anyone else has been able to give any physio-chemical, i.e, scientific data to support some of the claims made by his beloved manf., even in light of the previous, very long thread that was linked and which discussed this very topic.

I can only conclude that the arch-supporter purposely ignored the previous technical discussions because he really doesn't want to critically compare the claims against established physical and chemical laws.

For the arch-supporter, here is a clue:

Peer review, scientific debate, and scientific criticism is how the science community weeds out false claims and incorrect hypotheses, even in light of orthodox thinking.

Critical thinking requires that we as consumers raise a red flag and question claims not supported by science.

This applies to both, manufactured products and government agencies.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Since you clearly have not read either the FAA or FTC documentation, how do you know their claims are outlandish? Grow up, deal with the issues, stop trashing engineers in government agencies and stop trashing anyone who doesn't agree with your own narrow view.


This is an obvious indictment someone has not read, or understands, or ignores the specific validity of the FAA and FTC documentation. Nor understands the federal court decision against the manufactures of zmax.

If one did he/she would acknowledge zmax does a whole lot of nothing. The performance "claims" zmax is able to advertise, are presently preformed in properly formulated fuel and lubrication products.

Why spend more money on a product that does basically nothing? Additives present in fuel, PCMO's, and HDEO's already preform what zmax is able to claim.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Molakule knows *exactly* what he's talking about. You do not. Stop baiting.

In case you failed to notice, Molakule immediately dismissed the engineering tests and reports as "innuendo and psuedo-science" submitted to non-technical agencies. He did this without even looking at the reports. It's hard to see how anyone could be less informed.

You, on the other hand, seem to cling to a view of suppliers submitting meaningless products devoid of benefit to the FAA (and probably the FTC), who then approve these products for reasons other than contained in their own regulations. But, who knows?

-----

If we can get beyond the name calling, personal attacks, trashing engineers at Federal agencies and similar distractions, there is one interesting thing that occurred, which I alluded to earlier. Look at the message #3434690 posted by Dave1251 a few posts up. In that message he recites, with some editing and embellishment, the FTC's original complaint against Oil-Chem. It starts out...

"The Federal Trade Commission has filed suit in U. S. District Court seeking to halt false and misleading advertising for zMax auto additives and has asked the court to order refunds to consumers who bought the products. The agency alleges that enhanced performance claims for the product are unsubstantiated, that tests cited to support performance claims actually demonstrated that motor oil treated with zMax produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion... " and goes on and on ad nauseum. This complaint was filed in February, 2001.

Even a casual reading of this complaint suggests that Oil-Chem (the zMax, Avblend, Lenkite folks) were the worst thing to happen to the world since the great flood. Yet, less than 2 years later, the FTC is agreeing to settle the case. There are no damages or penalties. Oil-chem can continue making their advertising claims, plus a few new ones. The so-called refund 'fund' was a joke. W-T-F?

The only reasonable reading of this is the FTC leaped before they looked. Oil-chem may not have had every one of their ducks in a row, but they weren't off the mark by much. Suddenly, the FTC was looking for a way out of this mess without totally losing face.

Does this prove the zMax/Avblend/Lenkite is great stuff? Maybe or maybe not. But it does prove, rather convincingly, that the FTC could not disprove the Oil-chem claims (or they would have done that - attorneys have big egos). It also suggests that, in the FTC's view, and after reviewing the engineering evidence, Oil-chem had at least a preponderance of engineering evidence on their side - enough to convince a non-technical Federal judge.

And, given the speed with which this was resolved, this was likely the same evidence that Oil-chem had used to convince the non-technical boobs at the FAA some years earlier... the same evidence immediately dismissed by forum technicians, out of hand, without even seeing it.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Ahhh, he finally admits he is an arch-supporter. I am thrilled to see an admittance of same.

????

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Critical thinking requires that we as consumers raise a red flag and question claims not supported by science.

Does critical thinking include dismissing evidence out of hand as "innuendo and psuedo-science", even before you have seen the evidence? Or trashing engineers at government agencies who are simply doing their job?

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Why spend more money on a product that does basically nothing? Additives present in fuel, PCMO's, and HDEO's already preform what zmax is able to claim.

Once again, how do you know this?

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
There are no damages or penalties. Oil-chem can continue making their advertising claims, plus a few new ones. The so-called refund 'fund' was a joke. W-T-F?


No the federal court ruling resulted in makers of zmax are no longer able to make the following claims.

eliminates engine wear at startup
increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10%
lowers fuel consumption by 8.5%
lowers wear on valve stems by 66%
lowers wear on piston skirts by 60%; and
cuts carbon build-up on valve stems by 66%.

The ruling of refund "pool" is the court order to pay restitution. If you look at other FTC settlements such as FTC vs Dura Lube this is common in a class action lawsuit.
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2000/05/duralube.do_.htm

In other words. The makers of zmax made false advertisements and were forced to pay restitution.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Why spend more money on a product that does basically nothing? Additives present in fuel, PCMO's, and HDEO's already preform what zmax is able to claim.

Once again, how do you know this?


By reading the FAA type certificate of avblend and the settlement with the FTC.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Ahhh, he finally admits he is an arch-supporter.

I am thrilled to see an admittance of same.

But why is still a mystery unless, perhaps, he has some vested interest he is not disclosing?


Maybe he works for them? Owns stock? What is mystifying is why the support for a product he, by his own admission, does not or intends to use. A third possibility is he just likes to cause grief.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule


I find it interesting that we have had approx. 12 threads on this product and yet neither the arch-supporter nor anyone else has been able to give any physio-chemical, i.e, scientific data to support some of the claims made by his beloved manf., even in light of the previous, very long thread that was linked and which discussed this very topic.

I can only conclude that the arch-supporter purposely ignored the previous technical discussions because he really doesn't want to critically compare the claims against established physical and chemical laws.


Yes. Perhaps he's just a marketing department's dream. It's so much easier to just accept what they say. Never mind that they can't back it with anything other than pseudo-scientific technobabble.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule


For the arch-supporter, here is a clue:

Peer review, scientific debate, and scientific criticism is how the science community weeds out false claims and incorrect hypotheses, even in light of orthodox thinking.

Critical thinking requires that we as consumers raise a red flag and question claims not supported by science.

This applies to both, manufactured products and government agencies.



Very true. But then you get people on this very forum who start claiming that you're looking for an end user to provide scientific proof.

Why do critical thinking when it's so much easier to accept an anecdote.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
No the federal court ruling resulted in makers of zmax are no longer able to make the following claims.

eliminates engine wear at startup
increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10%
lowers fuel consumption by 8.5%
lowers wear on valve stems by 66%
lowers wear on piston skirts by 60%; and
cuts carbon build-up on valve stems by 66%.

But they can make the following claims:

zMAX soaks into metal.
zMAX reduces friction.
zMAX increases horsepower. zMAX dissipates engine heat. zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

About all Zmax had to do was remove the 'percentage' numbers from their claims. Big deal. What's more, they could make these modified claims with FTC approval. I am trying to be charitable to the FTC.

Originally Posted By: dave1251
The ruling of refund "pool" is the court order to pay restitution. If you look at other FTC settlements such as FTC vs Dura Lube this is common in a class action lawsuit. In other words. The makers of zmax made false advertisements and were forced to pay restitution.

This was not a class action lawsuit. zMax was only required to create the pool and send out notices offering refunds. Zmax already had a satisfied-or-your-money back guarantee. That is not the same as restitution. There were no damages awarded to either side, or to the public. ZMax did not admit to any false advertisements, almost certainly because the FTC couldn't prove it. No penalties. No payment of FTC attorney fees. No payment of FTC consulting fees. Pretty much a big zero (aka waste of taxpayer's money)

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Why do critical thinking when it's so much easier to accept an anecdote.

Why think at all when a forum user dismisses unseen engineering evidence out-of-hand as "innuendo and pseudo-science" and trashes engineers at government agencies as non-technical.

 

[kschachn]

The thing is, why not clear it all up by posting said unseen engineering evidence? If it cannot be posted or provided, then what's the point again?

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Why do critical thinking when it's so much easier to accept an anecdote.

Why think at all when a forum user dismisses unseen engineering evidence out-of-hand as "innuendo and pseudo-science" and trashes engineers at government agencies as non-technical.

 

[Trajan]

Here: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3374815/1

He claimed that MoS2 is an OEM approved oil additive because Molykote anti seize is...

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Ok this is Hillarious.

In Dave's attempt to say MoS2 is approved as an engine oil additive by manufacturers, he said this:

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Approved by vehicle manufacturers? Molykote (Dow Corning's trade name for MoS2 in oil suspension) complies with General Motors (Opel) spec B0401264, Volkswagen specification TL52112 and B7217, General Electric's specification TIL-1117-3Ri and Pratt & Whitney's specificition PWA-36246. And, one of the first spectacular uses of MoS2 in motor oil suspension was by Rolls-Royce in their Merlin engine. Granted, the Rolls Royce supercharged V-12 water cooled Merlin was only used in airplanes but the engine application seems appropriate. Pratt & Whitney is still using it.


ALL those manufacturer approvals are for Molykote P74 Super Anti Seize.

This is not an OIL ADDITIVE!!!!!!

I hope you're not using Molykote anti seize in your oil Dave because you found out it has GM and VW approval.

Talk about misstatements! You actually had to gall to claim Molykote is manufacturer approved as an oil additive based on manufacturer approval for Molykote anti seize.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
The thing is, why not clear it all up by posting said unseen engineering evidence? If it cannot be posted or provided, then what's the point again?

I agree completely, but, please, I am not an advocate for this Zmax. It's an interesting product, for sure. I don't have the exhibits the ZMax provided to the FTC, but they're probably available. They would be interesting.

Why waste time getting them, when the one person in the forum who might provide an intelligent evaluation dismissed them in advance - "innuendo and pseudo-science" and then trashed the very government agency which had evaluated them - all this because he simply did not like the product.

A sad feature of BITOG is that users tend to make up their minds first, then argue, even stupidly, to support that single conclusion. This is clearly not limited to casual users.

 

[dave1251]

In other words zmax does not harm nor any good. Thus 4,500,000.00USD in legal fees bought zmax the right to pay 1,000,000.00USD in restitution to consumers of the product. This settlement is similar to other settlements such as dura lube and slick 50 have with the FTC.


Thus providing very strong circumstantial evidence against zmax being worth much of anything other than the long list of additives do more good of draining one wallet rather than helping ones automobile engine.

If you researched what the makers of zmax claimed you have provided prior to the settlement with the FTC the claims are in fact not new
http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/zmaxpres.html
"We at Speedway Motorsports are very pleased that the staff of the Federal Trade Commission has specifically confirmed that Oil-Chem can continue to make the following claims in its advertising and promotion of zMAX," stated Marylaurel E. Wilks, vice president and general counsel of SMI.


zMAX soaks into metal,
zMAX reduces friction,
zMAX increases horsepower,
zMAX dissipates engine heat,
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits,
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits,
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits,
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits."

The makers of zmax have joined some exclusive and infamous company with Slick 50 and Dura lube. I will add that your continued posts in defense of zmax have demonstrated you have continued to make false references in regards to the FTC settlement with the makers of zmax. Thus either you have chosen to omit information available in your post or you have not researched your position. Either circumstance is not an positive to your position.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: kschachn
The thing is, why not clear it all up by posting said unseen engineering evidence? If it cannot be posted or provided, then what's the point again?

I agree completely, but, please, I am not an advocate for this Zmax. It's an interesting product, for sure. I don't have the exhibits the ZMax provided to the FTC, but they're probably available. They would be interesting.

Why waste time getting them, when the one person in the forum who might provide an intelligent evaluation dismissed them in advance - "innuendo and pseudo-science" and then trashed the very government agency which had evaluated them - all this because he simply did not like the product.

A sad feature of BITOG is that users tend to make up their minds first, then argue, even stupidly, to support that single conclusion. This is clearly not limited to casual users.


Then you need to get out of your Denial cubicle and do some reading.

This White Paper was in response to claims of, "soaking into metal."

Lubricant Films and Diffusion

If you have any technical questions about the White Paper feel free to ask.

For the record, many people have not discerned the differences between the diffusion process of materials into metal and the migration of fluids into porous media. These are TWO entirely different physical processes.

Somewhere in the BITOG archives, poster Johnny posted the results of the ASTM tests submitted to the FTC possibly using the same tests results they submitted to the FAA.

I commented on each test and how most of them did not show any correlation between those test results and any efficacy wrt to their claims.

Since the definition of efficacy has either been lost or ignored, here it is:

Quote:
Learner's definition of EFFICACY
[noncount] formal
: the power to produce a desired result or effect
The efficacy [=effectiveness] of this treatment has not yet been proved.


I also purchased two, two bottle bottle packages (I think I paid like 70 bucks for the set and they were on sale) of Z-max and ran some tests which are also reported somewhere here on BITOG. Maybe they are in the archives as well.

I did not see any improvements in fuel mileage, improvements in oil quality, nor did I see any penetration of Z-max into rusted ferrous articles.

So I think the onus of proof is now and has been upon the defense, err, the arch-supporter.