Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
So just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?

Trajan: Please share your experiences with Zmax, good or bad. What did it do or fail to do?

For everyone else, search the Court's order. Restitution is nowhere mentioned. Zmax only had to offer refunds. And, who knows, maybe their customers liked zMax? Trajan liked it, bought it, spent a lot of money on it. But he does not want to tell us about his Zmax moment.

In return, the FTC has officially approved the following ZMax ad 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.

'Sure looks like 'on top' to me.




So zmax is clear here that all its benefits are based on reducing engine deposits. So if there are no deposits exactly how is zmax beneficial?
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
When a court orders you to set up a fund to make refunds, that is *restitution*.

Restitution is a monetary payment sometimes ordered to be made as part of a judgment in negligence and/or contracts cases to restore a loss.

Knapp, Charles L. 1987. Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials. Boston: Little, Brown.

Shoben, Elaine W., and William Murray Tabb. 1989. Remedies: Cases and Problems. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press


Don't try to argue law or split hairs. You just making that hole deeper.

Instead, why don't you prove that Zmax does what it does, being that you keep defending a product you don't use.


Bump.
 
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
So just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?

Trajan: Please share your experiences with Zmax, good or bad. What did it do or fail to do?

For everyone else, search the Court's order. Restitution is nowhere mentioned. Zmax only had to offer refunds. And, who knows, maybe their customers liked zMax? Trajan liked it, bought it, spent a lot of money on it. But he does not want to tell us about his Zmax moment.

In return, the FTC has officially approved the following ZMax ad 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.

'Sure looks like 'on top' to me.


I have to agree. The reason the FTC sued was to force ZMax to stop making those claims at all because the FTC thought they were not true. To me, it seems like the lawsuit got as far as the discovery phase where the FTC saw what it was up against. At that point, the FTC saw it was about to lose the whole thing, including whatever counter suit was filed if any. It then found the best way to exit.

The ZMax lawyers seemed to have made sure that they could still make the claims they wanted to make and the FTC had no choice but to agree.

On the "restitution" that is mentioned. ZMax already had a guarantee from my understanding. If ANYONE was not happy with their product, they could request their money back. I think they still have the same offer now. I'll check next time I go to the store.

I might add, I checked the claims the other day when I was in Walmart. The things dave5358 listed are still right there on the box. If the FTC won, why are those still there?
 
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
So just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?

Trajan: Please share your experiences with Zmax, good or bad. What did it do or fail to do?

For everyone else, search the Court's order. Restitution is nowhere mentioned. Zmax only had to offer refunds. And, who knows, maybe their customers liked zMax? Trajan liked it, bought it, spent a lot of money on it. But he does not want to tell us about his Zmax moment.

In return, the FTC has officially approved the following ZMax ad 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.

'Sure looks like 'on top' to me.


Because the FTC did not file a lawsuit against every claim from the makers of zmax does not equal the FTC approvals the claims of the product.

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-rel...chem-subsidiary

Read.
 
Quote:
The best case would have been if Molakule or some technical person interpreted engineering or other test results, and these tests clearly exist. But, that option is unlikely. So, let's work with what we've got.


That is patently false.

Let the record show I have done that. Let the record also show that Zarch has not presented any technical documentation or rebuttals.

Zarch either doesn't understand technical data, or is ignorning the data I presented, or both (most likely scenario), because it doesn't fit his distorted paradigm.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
When a court orders you to set up a fund to make refunds, that is *restitution*.

Restitution is a monetary payment sometimes ordered to be made as part of a judgment in negligence and/or contracts cases to restore a loss.

Knapp, Charles L. 1987. Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials. Boston: Little, Brown.

Shoben, Elaine W., and William Murray Tabb. 1989. Remedies: Cases and Problems. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press


Don't try to argue law or split hairs. You just making that hole deeper.

Instead, why don't you prove that Zmax does what it does, being that you keep defending a product you don't use.


Bump.


So silly. ZMax proves its point and the FTC is looking for a exit door. ZMax choses to do what it already said it would and some people call that restitution. News flash, the offer was there BEFORE the FTC ever filed the lawsuit. It had a money back guarantee. Is that considered "restitution" or just called standing behind your product and the claims you made about what it would do?
 
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
So just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?

Trajan: Please share your experiences with Zmax, good or bad. What did it do or fail to do?


I know that you have a problem of only seeing what you want to see. And going into left field tangents when called on your sea of misinformation, so I'll try and make it easy for you.

Originally Posted By: Trajan
+ BTW, I've used it. I spent a lot of money on it. It didn't kill the Z4's M54B30. (lack of harm.) :But it also didn't increase performance, (Like some additive would do better that the BMW engine designers.) It'd didn't increase gas mileage. It didn't keep the injectors clean. (PEA could do that. Cheaper too.) It didn't increase horsepower. Or anything else it claimed. (Thus no proof of benefit.)
[/color]
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rdalek
[

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: rdalek

ZMax has dealt with and still come out on top,


Dang time limit.

So just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?


It saves them from having to pay lawyers.


If you actually read the decision, you would of seen that they had to pay their own legal fees. So much for your claim that they didn't have to pay lawyers...

So again, just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?
 
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
When a court orders you to set up a fund to make refunds, that is *restitution*.

Restitution is a monetary payment sometimes ordered to be made as part of a judgment in negligence and/or contracts cases to restore a loss.

Knapp, Charles L. 1987. Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials. Boston: Little, Brown.

Shoben, Elaine W., and William Murray Tabb. 1989. Remedies: Cases and Problems. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press


Don't try to argue law or split hairs. You just making that hole deeper.

Instead, why don't you prove that Zmax does what it does, being that you keep defending a product you don't use.


Bump.


So silly. ZMax proves its point and the FTC is looking for a exit door. ZMax choses to do what it already said it would and some people call that restitution. News flash, the offer was there BEFORE the FTC ever filed the lawsuit. It had a money back guarantee. Is that considered "restitution" or just called standing behind your product and the claims you made about what it would do?


Being forced by a court to pony up a million dollar restitution is not standing behind your product.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
So just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?

Trajan: Please share your experiences with Zmax, good or bad. What did it do or fail to do?

For everyone else, search the Court's order. Restitution is nowhere mentioned. Zmax only had to offer refunds. And, who knows, maybe their customers liked zMax? Trajan liked it, bought it, spent a lot of money on it. But he does not want to tell us about his Zmax moment.

In return, the FTC has officially approved the following ZMax ad 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.

'Sure looks like 'on top' to me.


Because the FTC did not file a lawsuit against every claim from the makers of zmax does not equal the FTC approvals the claims of the product.

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-rel...chem-subsidiary

Read.


It does in his world. But not the one BITOG is in.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
The best case would have been if Molakule or some technical person interpreted engineering or other test results, and these tests clearly exist. But, that option is unlikely. So, let's work with what we've got.


That is patently false.

Let the record show I have done that. Let the record also show that Zarch has not presented any technical documentation or rebuttals.

Zarch either doesn't understand technical data, or is ignorning the data I presented, or both (most likely scenario), because it doesn't fit his distorted paradigm.


The record will so reflect.

Zarch and his supporters have not presented any evidence that can show that the product on trial can actually support its claims using any recognized method of physics/chemistry/tribology.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Arctic388
Is there scientific proof PEA cleans injectors?


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2510005


Can the Zmax cheerleaders do that?


No. The best the cheerleaders can do is provide testimony from Carroll Shelby. The same Shelby that was caught red handed selling reproduction Cobra chassis as original AC chassis.

I really like Shelby's cars but Carroll Shelby would say and do just about anything for a buck.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: rdalek
[

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: rdalek

ZMax has dealt with and still come out on top,


Dang time limit.

So just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?


It saves them from having to pay lawyers.


If you actually read the decision, you would of seen that they had to pay their own legal fees. So much for your claim that they didn't have to pay lawyers...

So again, just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?


Did they have to pay the lawyers to continue fighting the FTC? Did they have to keep paying those lawyers just like they would if they had to keep going through the trial and the appeals process? Trajan, do you even use common sense? The FTC filed a lawsuit. They then stopped fighting the case without stopping ZMax from making basically the same claims they had been making all along which is what the FTC was wanting to do. Are you really that bad off when it comes to common sense? Seriously. The FTC wants to drop the thing, ZMax still makes basically the same claims and you claim the FTC won. Question. If the FTC won, how is it that ZMax still has basically the same claims it made before? If ZMax had to stop making the claims all together, then I would agree that the FTC won. Heck, if it had to drop most of the previous claims I would at least be able to see the point. Thing is, ZMax is still making basically the same claims they were making before. Until you can explain WHY the FTC still allows basically the same claims as before, you have nothing to add to this but some flawed logic. The FTC lost and ZMax won because it is still making basically the same claims as before.

This so called "restitution" that keeps getting mentioned. For the who just doesn't get it yet. ZMax from my understanding already had a money back guarantee. That means, ANYONE that didn't feel the product did what it claimed, which is what the FTC was suing over, they could get their money back. The so called "restitution" offer was there before the FTC filed the lawsuit. You get that? They would already give you your money back if you didn't like it. There are a LOT of companies that do the same exact thing. You buy their product, you don't like it, it doesn't do what you expected or whatever, you contact the company and get your money back. You don't have to get the FTC to file a lawsuit and then run away to get that. As was posted a few pages back, I'd like to know if anyone ever filed to get the cost of even one bottle from the so called "restitution" fund. The simplest and easiest way would be to use the money back guarantee instead of going through the process of getting it from the "restitution" fund.
 
How does a court ordered million dollar restitution mean a company come out on top?

How does having to pay lawyers mean they didn't have to pay lawyers? Your own statement said they didn't.

How is being told by a court to pay a million dollar restitution constitute standing behind your product?

Why can't you prove the validity of Zmax claims? That would be a better use of your time instead of trying, and failing, to argue law.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
...The so called "restitution" offer was there before the FTC filed the lawsuit. You get that?...


Apparently some people don't get an understanding of legal definitions, get how the legal system works, nor get how scientific "cause-and-effect" matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

edyvw
Turo Rental: 2022 Toyota Sienna Hybrid
4 5 6
Replies
114
Views
12K
ARB1977
T
Made it to 48 states - stats/writeup (several loop roadtrips)
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
TmanP
W
20,000 miles in a CX-5 GT-R
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
22K
Tshane3000
F
  • Locked
advice 02 civic motomaster 5w30 9222km 264482km
2
Replies
25
Views
8K
Garak
Artem
  • Locked
Over thinking engine oil - MPG related
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
38K
Gene K
Back
Top Bottom