I bit the bullet and ordered some Cermet.
- Thread starter Hethaerto
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Most of the true "snake oils" cost about $0.65/gallon and retail for $50. Even if you ask for your money back, they already paid for it with the S&H charge. The rest was gravy.
If there was a cheaper outlet for this substance, someone would be promoting it everywhere.
So, go on the assumption that it's the real deal. Call it "found not guilty" on one count of the indictment.
Now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it pays for itself in added utility or avoided costs.
That's the tough one.
If there was a cheaper outlet for this substance, someone would be promoting it everywhere.
So, go on the assumption that it's the real deal. Call it "found not guilty" on one count of the indictment.
Now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it pays for itself in added utility or avoided costs.
That's the tough one.
That RVS stuff looks cool. Is it really expensive, too?
Originally Posted By: Hethaerto
Go figger.
how do you do that?
Go figger.
how do you do that?
Originally Posted By: Vikas
I actually looked up the product. It comes in a syringe and you get 5ml of it for $150 if you buy direct. At this price, it should come in a nice perfume crystal bottle! It is even more expensive than ink from a typical ink-jet printer
It is unfortunate that they have priced it so high. If it was under $25, even skeptic like me would purchase it.
- Vikas
I live about 10 miles from the "labs" . I'll have to take a looksee one day to see if it is more than a post office box and a couple cemet mixers. (couldn't resist)
I actually looked up the product. It comes in a syringe and you get 5ml of it for $150 if you buy direct. At this price, it should come in a nice perfume crystal bottle! It is even more expensive than ink from a typical ink-jet printer
It is unfortunate that they have priced it so high. If it was under $25, even skeptic like me would purchase it.
- Vikas
I live about 10 miles from the "labs" . I'll have to take a looksee one day to see if it is more than a post office box and a couple cemet mixers. (couldn't resist)
I spent $110. My car now runs like new with 82k miles.
I just hope it lasts a good, long time. So far, it's exceeding all of my expectations.
I just hope it lasts a good, long time. So far, it's exceeding all of my expectations.
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Anybody else wants to take a look at the following testimonial posted on that web site? Couple of statements jump out at me. It says the engine speed was kept constant at 1600rpm, hence the fuel consumption did NOT change but because of the magic elixir, vessel cut down its trip time! I supposed there is one born every minute!
Wow I just went throught this thread again. [censored] flag is flying high here! If the rpms are constant then the speed of the vehicle is the same, how do we cut trip time?
If there was a 1 in a 100 shot of me trying this product, they just lost me as a customer. [censored] meter is pegged.
Thanks for posting. I had my doubts, now I'm certain!
Anybody else wants to take a look at the following testimonial posted on that web site? Couple of statements jump out at me. It says the engine speed was kept constant at 1600rpm, hence the fuel consumption did NOT change but because of the magic elixir, vessel cut down its trip time! I supposed there is one born every minute!
Wow I just went throught this thread again. [censored] flag is flying high here! If the rpms are constant then the speed of the vehicle is the same, how do we cut trip time?
If there was a 1 in a 100 shot of me trying this product, they just lost me as a customer. [censored] meter is pegged.
Thanks for posting. I had my doubts, now I'm certain!
Carry on with your brilliant self.
Exactly, and why not use those oddities in the marketing? The trick is to see through it.
Wow,
Guys this is my second posting on this web site and I must say that I would have to see some pretty incredible results to spend $110.00 on an oil additive myself. I was wondering if you had your oil analized before you installed the product so you could get a good reading on what it is doing for you after 3000,5000 or 10000 miles. After all as so many guys on this site have said there are a lot of oil additives that are very short lived.
Guys this is my second posting on this web site and I must say that I would have to see some pretty incredible results to spend $110.00 on an oil additive myself. I was wondering if you had your oil analized before you installed the product so you could get a good reading on what it is doing for you after 3000,5000 or 10000 miles. After all as so many guys on this site have said there are a lot of oil additives that are very short lived.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
A product like this is in a pickle. Let's for the moment assume that it does just like it says it does. Let's assume that it actually pays for itself in avoided costs. Now lets see how you can manage to prove that it lasts and what the retreat rate will be.
That type of testing costs money. BIG MONEY. Now let's say that it can't be used on a brand new engine. Let's say that it has limited benefit to a new engine (I don't know, I'm just pulling questions out of my behind). In that case you would have to find a "standard damaged" engine to actually perform the testing to see the improvement. Then the potential customer has to determine if his level of wear is enough to justify the purchase. It gets complicated.
We can assume that the OEM's haven't latched on to it for one or a few reasons (of a mechanical/engineering nature). Either it offers nothing in advantage to a new engine, or would upset the break-in process ...or it can't make some mileage limitation for the EPA claims that they could make with its use (something like that).
So, testimonials and adaptive testing it is
That type of testing costs money. BIG MONEY. Now let's say that it can't be used on a brand new engine. Let's say that it has limited benefit to a new engine (I don't know, I'm just pulling questions out of my behind). In that case you would have to find a "standard damaged" engine to actually perform the testing to see the improvement. Then the potential customer has to determine if his level of wear is enough to justify the purchase. It gets complicated.
We can assume that the OEM's haven't latched on to it for one or a few reasons (of a mechanical/engineering nature). Either it offers nothing in advantage to a new engine, or would upset the break-in process ...or it can't make some mileage limitation for the EPA claims that they could make with its use (something like that).
So, testimonials and adaptive testing it is
CerMet recommends not using on a new engine. They say it seeks out the hot spots which is naturally where the most material would have been lost over time. It's supposed to fill in that area of lost material, and also balance out spinning parts.
I can't feel my engine running anymore.
The car gets up and goes now. It's running just like it did when I bought it with 50k miles on it. A friend of mine kept the car while I was deployed and drove it every day for nearly a year.
He didn't change the oil once. When the car was returned to me, it ran sluggishly, and idled very roughly. Full tune-up later, ARX, Tufoil, new plugs, everything I could think of, it still ran weak and rough in comparison to when I first bought it.
After this Cermet treatment, it's running just like it did 32k miles ago......like a dream.
I can't feel my engine running anymore.
The car gets up and goes now. It's running just like it did when I bought it with 50k miles on it. A friend of mine kept the car while I was deployed and drove it every day for nearly a year.
He didn't change the oil once. When the car was returned to me, it ran sluggishly, and idled very roughly. Full tune-up later, ARX, Tufoil, new plugs, everything I could think of, it still ran weak and rough in comparison to when I first bought it.
After this Cermet treatment, it's running just like it did 32k miles ago......like a dream.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
CerMet recommends not using on a new engine. They say it seeks out the hot spots which is naturally where the most material would have been lost over time. It's supposed to fill in that area of lost material, and also balance out spinning parts.
That's what I thought might be an issue. That's why it won't work for an OEM. It requires run in and a certain expectation of wear.
It's a shame for products like this. They may be able to do wonders, but you've sorta got to need them to use them. By the time you need them, many people are getting rid of their car anyway. That pushes it to the secondary owner market, which is less likely to spend that much money on a product. Not that it doesn't make sense (it may) ..just it's less likely.
CerMet recommends not using on a new engine. They say it seeks out the hot spots which is naturally where the most material would have been lost over time. It's supposed to fill in that area of lost material, and also balance out spinning parts.
That's what I thought might be an issue. That's why it won't work for an OEM. It requires run in and a certain expectation of wear.
It's a shame for products like this. They may be able to do wonders, but you've sorta got to need them to use them. By the time you need them, many people are getting rid of their car anyway. That pushes it to the secondary owner market, which is less likely to spend that much money on a product. Not that it doesn't make sense (it may) ..just it's less likely.
Yep, you are correct on all points.
However, your points would be perfect for developing an effective marketing plan, which I don't think this company has put much thought into thus far.
However, your points would be perfect for developing an effective marketing plan, which I don't think this company has put much thought into thus far.
Originally Posted By: Hethaerto
Carry on with your brilliant self.
Will do, and I can enjoy that extra $110 I didn't spend.
Sorry I don't want to get this thread locked. Someone had PM'ed me something about Cermet and a ship traveling at 1600 rpms doing the same trip in less time. 1600 rpms produces a certain amount of speed, if the distance traveled is EXACTLY the same each time, then it will take EXACTLY the same time to get there. That is with perfect conditions. Power that ship into the wind, or into heavy seas things change fast. Power that ship into a dead calm with a tail wind and the trip will take less time. BTW-I'm an Airman.
Someone above made a similar statement. I'm really surprised if their test was in fact something that could actually defy physics why the Navy isn't using it.
Carry on with your brilliant self.
Will do, and I can enjoy that extra $110 I didn't spend.
Sorry I don't want to get this thread locked. Someone had PM'ed me something about Cermet and a ship traveling at 1600 rpms doing the same trip in less time. 1600 rpms produces a certain amount of speed, if the distance traveled is EXACTLY the same each time, then it will take EXACTLY the same time to get there. That is with perfect conditions. Power that ship into the wind, or into heavy seas things change fast. Power that ship into a dead calm with a tail wind and the trip will take less time. BTW-I'm an Airman.
Someone above made a similar statement. I'm really surprised if their test was in fact something that could actually defy physics why the Navy isn't using it.
Well lets put this another way, how about we take it to the land? A car has a 50 mile trip to make at 50 mgh, it takes an hour to get there. If we add oil additive XYZ to the engine and drive the same exact trip, at the same exact speed it will still take an hour. Same goes for the ship traveling at 1600 rpms if everything else is equal, wind, tide, and sea conditions. Now if they were to say that they lowered operating temps and wear numbers were better, and left the time factor out that would make sense to me. Traveling the same distance at the same speed in less time, how? Maybe they should consider changing their report?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
However, your points would be perfect for developing an effective marketing plan, which I don't think this company has put much thought into thus far.
There's a road block that you run into. It's more like a toll gate. They would have to hand this over to some Z-Max/Duralube/Prolong like marketing crowd of investors. High dollar productions and celebrity endorsements ..a sticker on a race car. All that costs a pretty high ante. The hype usually pays off for everyone except the producer. That sort of marketing works from the "top down", so to speak. It was popular when there was tons of disposable cash out there. At their peak the yield from the market was around $50-$70. This would work backwards down to the producer of the actual product being in the $0.50/liter/piece (something like the Tornado).
If you've got something that actually costs a decent amount to produce ..on any scale (this stuff isn't a common commodity like chlorinated paraffins ) then the top end price, when you add all the promotional costs, gets pushed too high. Now, in the current state of our economy, all of that easily had disposable cash has been depleted.
A most difficult position to be in for growth.
However, your points would be perfect for developing an effective marketing plan, which I don't think this company has put much thought into thus far.
There's a road block that you run into. It's more like a toll gate. They would have to hand this over to some Z-Max/Duralube/Prolong like marketing crowd of investors. High dollar productions and celebrity endorsements ..a sticker on a race car. All that costs a pretty high ante. The hype usually pays off for everyone except the producer. That sort of marketing works from the "top down", so to speak. It was popular when there was tons of disposable cash out there. At their peak the yield from the market was around $50-$70. This would work backwards down to the producer of the actual product being in the $0.50/liter/piece (something like the Tornado).
If you've got something that actually costs a decent amount to produce ..on any scale (this stuff isn't a common commodity like chlorinated paraffins ) then the top end price, when you add all the promotional costs, gets pushed too high. Now, in the current state of our economy, all of that easily had disposable cash has been depleted.
A most difficult position to be in for growth.
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Will do, and I can enjoy that extra $110 I didn't spend.
Sorry I don't want to get this thread locked. Someone had PM'ed me something about Cermet and a ship traveling at 1600 rpms doing the same trip in less time. 1600 rpms produces a certain amount of speed, if the distance traveled is EXACTLY the same each time, then it will take EXACTLY the same time to get there. That is with perfect conditions. Power that ship into the wind, or into heavy seas things change fast. Power that ship into a dead calm with a tail wind and the trip will take less time. BTW-I'm an Airman.
Someone above made a similar statement. I'm really surprised if their test was in fact something that could actually defy physics why the Navy isn't using it.
I'm glad you're an Airman. Just ignore the marketing hooks. Every company exploits every oddity in the product testing. In this case, the hook doesn't make any sense because the propulsion is mechanically coupled to the engine. This company has poor marketing skills, but they seem to make a good product.
Hey, keep your money, and don't worry about CerMet.
BTW: I'm Navy, too.
Will do, and I can enjoy that extra $110 I didn't spend.
Sorry I don't want to get this thread locked. Someone had PM'ed me something about Cermet and a ship traveling at 1600 rpms doing the same trip in less time. 1600 rpms produces a certain amount of speed, if the distance traveled is EXACTLY the same each time, then it will take EXACTLY the same time to get there. That is with perfect conditions. Power that ship into the wind, or into heavy seas things change fast. Power that ship into a dead calm with a tail wind and the trip will take less time. BTW-I'm an Airman.
Someone above made a similar statement. I'm really surprised if their test was in fact something that could actually defy physics why the Navy isn't using it.
I'm glad you're an Airman. Just ignore the marketing hooks. Every company exploits every oddity in the product testing. In this case, the hook doesn't make any sense because the propulsion is mechanically coupled to the engine. This company has poor marketing skills, but they seem to make a good product.
Hey, keep your money, and don't worry about CerMet.
BTW: I'm Navy, too.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
However, your points would be perfect for developing an effective marketing plan, which I don't think this company has put much thought into thus far.
There's a road block that you run into. It's more like a toll gate. They would have to hand this over to some Z-Max/Duralube/Prolong like marketing crowd of investors. High dollar productions and celebrity endorsements ..a sticker on a race car. All that costs a pretty high ante. The hype usually pays off for everyone except the producer. That sort of marketing works from the "top down", so to speak. It was popular when there was tons of disposable cash out there. At their peak the yield from the market was around $50-$70. This would work backwards down to the producer of the actual product being in the $0.50/liter/piece (something like the Tornado).
If you've got something that actually costs a decent amount to produce ..on any scale (this stuff isn't a common commodity like chlorinated paraffins ) then the top end price, when you add all the promotional costs, gets pushed too high. Now, in the current state of our economy, all of that easily had disposable cash has been depleted.
A most difficult position to be in for growth.
You've got a solid grasp on a lot of stuff, Gary.
Are you running a company right now?
Quote:
However, your points would be perfect for developing an effective marketing plan, which I don't think this company has put much thought into thus far.
There's a road block that you run into. It's more like a toll gate. They would have to hand this over to some Z-Max/Duralube/Prolong like marketing crowd of investors. High dollar productions and celebrity endorsements ..a sticker on a race car. All that costs a pretty high ante. The hype usually pays off for everyone except the producer. That sort of marketing works from the "top down", so to speak. It was popular when there was tons of disposable cash out there. At their peak the yield from the market was around $50-$70. This would work backwards down to the producer of the actual product being in the $0.50/liter/piece (something like the Tornado).
If you've got something that actually costs a decent amount to produce ..on any scale (this stuff isn't a common commodity like chlorinated paraffins ) then the top end price, when you add all the promotional costs, gets pushed too high. Now, in the current state of our economy, all of that easily had disposable cash has been depleted.
A most difficult position to be in for growth.
You've got a solid grasp on a lot of stuff, Gary.
Are you running a company right now?
- Status
Similar threads
