Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Johnny's cred came as an employee of shell. He had direct access to their engineers and process folks.


No kidding. This isnt to knock Johnny, just to say that his endorsement of Zmax was not from a basis of physics, physical chemistry or tribology. And when Mola and I have asked questions about the techniques/approaches and the "chemist's" claims, there was never a satisfactory answer.
 
In general I have never really believed in any oil supplement that a person can find in a typical auto parts store. The two exceptions are Lubegard Biotech Engine Supplement and LM moly that can be ordered in NAPA Stores. I am more willing to use fuel supplements that can be found in stores like Wal-Mart or auto parts stores. I think fuel supplements like BG-44K, Techron, and Gumout are pretty good.

Z-Max had some of the same advertising that you could find for products like Duralube and others. Anytime I see a product advertised through that kind of advertising I am not going to use it. I could give all kinds of examples but it would take too long. Just to give a few examples I remember this Indy 500 driver on TV commercials advertising an oil supplement and the next year he was advertising for another product. And commercials of engines supposedly running without motor oil (which an engine can potentially do for a limited time if it is prepared properly) and stuff like that. Various claims that almost scream 'SCAM!'

I liked Lubegard products because a chemist who worked for Exxon/Mobil helped develop their products. And because Lubegard transmission supplements were actually approved by three auto manufacturers years ago. And LM moly supplement is made by a major lubricant company.

A lot of these other products use clorinated paraffins that the oil companies rejected decades ago because they caused corrosion and because they were potential cancer threats. And some of these products like STP were just thick oil with a few additives like anti-wear additive. The original Slick50 was oil with PTFE tossed in and Dupont at that time at least said that PTFE should not be used in engines. I think the Slick50 they still sell today is different but I still would not use it either.

Some of these companies that make these various oil supplements have been fined also by the FTC. STP was fined twice. The makers of Duralube were also fined. I don't know if Z-Max was fined or not. The companies were fined for false advertising. That should tell you something.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic

Some of these companies that make these various oil supplements have been fined also by the FTC. STP was fined twice. The makers of Duralube were also fined. I don't know if Z-Max was fined or not. The companies were fined for false advertising. That should tell you something.


Zmax defended itself in the court of law vs the FTC.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Mystic

Some of these companies that make these various oil supplements have been fined also by the FTC. STP was fined twice. The makers of Duralube were also fined. I don't know if Z-Max was fined or not. The companies were fined for false advertising. That should tell you something.


Zmax defended itself in the court of law vs the FTC.


http://www.lubereport.com/e_article000139666.cfm
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Mystic

Some of these companies that make these various oil supplements have been fined also by the FTC. STP was fined twice. The makers of Duralube were also fined. I don't know if Z-Max was fined or not. The companies were fined for false advertising. That should tell you something.


Zmax defended itself in the court of law vs the FTC.


Really? Seems the complaint was filed compellingly...

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/02/zmax1.shtm

And a fine was paid.

http://www.lubereport.com/e_article000139666.cfm

Making claims with adds is always a tough thing. Whether the claims and approach to settle were dubious or not I cant say, but there is always such a risk.

Look at how many people even on here claim no benefit from ARX, FP60, TCW, whatever else put in oil or fuel.
 
Looks like they lost the case. Or at any rate they agreed to a one million dollar settlement. So apparently the government had a decent case against them.

As for some of the products discussed here as far as I know the maker of Auto-RX, and the companies that make MMO and Kreen have never been fined by the FTC. In fact, as far as I know the makers of Tufoil, a product I used to use in the past, have never been fined.

But it seems to me that if a company has been fined by the FTC, even if that company made some kind of settlement agreement in court, is not the sort of company I want to be buying products from. I think you have to assume that if the FTC is willing to fine some company they must have some evidence of wrong doing on the part of that company.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule


Help us understand what component or components in Zmax imparts what protection and performance advantages?


Why do I care about protection and performance advantages? I only care about fuel mileage and have told you this many times. Adding ZMAX gave me better fuel economy. You can calculate this by dividing the miles driven by the gallon of fuel used. Does that help?
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Looks like they lost the case. Or at any rate they agreed to a one million dollar settlement. So apparently the government had a decent case against them.

As for some of the products discussed here as far as I know the maker of Auto-RX, and the companies that make MMO and Kreen have never been fined by the FTC. In fact, as far as I know the makers of Tufoil, a product I used to use in the past, have never been fined.

But it seems to me that if a company has been fined by the FTC, even if that company made some kind of settlement agreement in court, is not the sort of company I want to be buying products from. I think you have to assume that if the FTC is willing to fine some company they must have some evidence of wrong doing on the part of that company.


No, they didn't lose the case. They were allowed to continue with their advertising due to evidence provided in court. FTC was accusing them of false advertising. Hard to say FTC won the case when Zmax was allowed to continue with their claims.

Also, here are the court documents showing Z-Max met the requirements:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2044492

FTC didn't "win" the case. They won that Z-Max had to provide evidence to backup any future advertising claims and they did.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Mystic
But it seems to me that if a company has been fined by the FTC, even if that company made some kind of settlement agreement in court, is not the sort of company I want to be buying products from. I think you have to assume that if the FTC is willing to fine some company they must have some evidence of wrong doing on the part of that company.


Seems to be sound logic, but following it would mean you'd have to stop buying from Valvoline as the FTC seemed to have gotten involved with them also.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Looks like they lost the case. Or at any rate they agreed to a one million dollar settlement. So apparently the government had a decent case against them.

As for some of the products discussed here as far as I know the maker of Auto-RX, and the companies that make MMO and Kreen have never been fined by the FTC. In fact, as far as I know the makers of Tufoil, a product I used to use in the past, have never been fined.

But it seems to me that if a company has been fined by the FTC, even if that company made some kind of settlement agreement in court, is not the sort of company I want to be buying products from. I think you have to assume that if the FTC is willing to fine some company they must have some evidence of wrong doing on the part of that company.


No, they didn't lose the case. They were allowed to continue with their advertising due to evidence provided in court. FTC was accusing them of false advertising. Hard to say FTC won the case when Zmax was allowed to continue with their claims.

Also, here are the court documents showing Z-Max met the requirements:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2044492

FTC didn't "win" the case. They won that Z-Max had to provide evidence to backup any future advertising claims and they did.



Thank you. The mere fact that someone sued you in court does NOT prove guilt or innocence.

Frankly, IMO they met the challenge squarely and won.
 
I have a 1994 Mazda Protege with the BP DOHC engine that has about 200,000 miles on it. When first bought, I ran Castrol dino oil. A few years after synthetic oil came out and got a few kinks worked out, I switched to full synthetic oil, still Castrol. With dino oil, I changed it every 3,000 miles or so. When using synthetic oil, I went up to 5,000 miles. For many years, even when on dino oil, I added a little Morey's Oil Stabilizer and Marvel Mystery Oil at oil change.

The biggest issue I ever had was when I tried to run ethanol in it. A few hundred dollars later, it is sort of back to normal. It got messy when using that. Mostly fuel filters but spark plugs got messed up which lead to other issues. Mechanically tho, never any issues. I've never even had the cam cover off of it tho I am curious as to how clean it is under there. Looks clean through the oil fill hole tho. ;-)

When I first bought the car, I got about 22 or so MPG. For years, I got about 29 to 31. That was after I started putting in the Morey's and Marvel. Ethanol tore up that tho. A few weeks ago, I was down to about 24 mpg. Today with almost all highway driving, about 26 MPG. I'd like to get back up to around 30 mpg or so.

I've thought about putting some Z-Max in this thing to see if it helps. Anyone think it would given what I have been running in it for years?

By the way, when I started putting Morey's in it, the heater takes a good long while to warm up. It must be helping with friction some at least.

Thoughts?
 
What the FTC said was that the marketing claims had to be backed up by industry tests, and that the FTC would have the right to further review any existing or future marketing claims.

One of the main topics that concerned me and about 4 or 5 others at the time was the equivocal Auger Spectroscopy testing and claim that supposedly Zmaz diffused into metal.

I wrote a paper on this:

Diffusion and Atomic/Molecular Constraints

which showed it can't happen.


This data was presented to Zmax principles and chemists with no rebuttal or educated response.

The FTC merely took their Auger claim at face value because they had no forensics chemists or Physicists to properly examine this claim, since they were a TRADE commission, without any expertise in chemistry, physics, or tribology.


Does it do any harm, other than maybe reducing the host oil viscosity? Probably not.

Does it have any intrinsic value or performance advantages that can be proven. Not in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
This data was presented to Zmax principles and chemists with no rebuttal or educated response.

The FTC merely took their Auger claim at face value because they had no forensics chemists or Physicists to properly examine this claim, since they were a TRADE commission, without any expertise in chemistry, physics, or tribology.


Exactly. Idiot lawyers and "business" people duping the public may still make claims, but the trump card exists here - there is no physics to define the claims, and so in real terms it is a silly concept to think that they somehow "won" based upon anything real.

Blind leading the blind, wow what a thing to be proud of...

Wonder how close they are to paying the $1M fine they were hit with as settlement. That's a lot of bottles of the stuff...

One should always leave room that a mechanism may exist to define a phenomena. There is an active claim here of MPG improvement (though Im not sure if at the percentage levels claimed by the vendor). I think the mechanism suggested (viscosity reduction) is valid, as the reality is that there is no more energy in this liquid than in a parent fuel or basis otherwise to show that it changes the oil. But a mechanism still may exist, even if only as simple as viscosity reduction, vice some fancy incipient wetness of pores in iron blah blah.
 
+1 MolaKule.
Having taken a couple of college level physics courses, the first time that I saw the Z-Max infomercial I knew that their claim was a lie and a scam! For those of you that want to defend them, think about this... IF their product actually did what they say it does, what is preventing it from going right through the oil pan (or engine block) and ending-up on the ground (or in the air)?
 
Originally Posted By: wag123
IF their product actually did what they say it does, what is preventing it from going right through the oil pan (or engine block) and ending-up on the ground (or in the air)?


Is that their claim? I guess it's the same properties that prevents water poured on the ground from ending up on the other side of the world.
 
I've never personally tried Zmax, never really liked their infomercial advertising technique. But I'm going to give this stuff a try myself to see if it's worth anything. I bought just one bottle, actually Avblend as I found it for a bit cheaper than Zmax.

Don't have high hopes but the only time I've found if something is worth a [censored], is when I've tried it and judged for myself. So I'll give Zmax/Avblend a shot.
 
Great! Give it a shot. It may have some solvency, and may lower the viscosity of your lune oil or act like a UCL. Let us know what you experience.

I'll say it again that the physics isn't there in a substantial way, but there may be other less interesting mechanisms that do something for some folks...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top