Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan

What they don't claim anymore:

• increases gas mileage
• reduces engine wear
• extends engine life
• lowers fuel consumption by 8.5%
• lowers wear on valve stems by 66%
• lowers wear on piston skirts by 60%
• cuts carbon build-up on valve stems by 66%

Yep. Sure looks like they make the same claims pre and post suit.



Quote:
zMAX Engine Formula
$19.95

Product # 51212 - 12oz Engine Formula

The unique ability of zMAX to soak into metal and reduce engine deposits results in:

Increased Gas Mileage (helps maintain gas mileage in newer cars, and helps improve or restore gas mileage in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits)

Improved Performance

Extended Engine Life

Reduced Emissions (helps maintain emissions in newer cars, and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits )

Increased Horsepower


That is from their website like 2 minutes ago. Let me help a bit OK. Still soaks into the metal, something a couple people on here just can't figure out yet the FTC still lets them claim even after the lawsuit that the FTC dropped and some claim the FTC WON. Those same people still can not explain that tho. Increased gas mileage just with no percentage. Improved performance could include reduces engine wear and a few other old claims as well. Extended Engine Life is about the same as "reduces engine wear". You seeing a trend here yet? Actually, I bet you don't see a thing.

Like I said, you still have not been able to show the FTC won a thing with regard to the claims made by ZMax. If as you say the claims were not proven, then tell me why the FTC dropped the lawsuit and still allows basically the same claims as before. Until then, you are not proving anything really changed. They changed the words but the new words still mean basically the same as before.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
rdaleck: ...Actually, I been following this thread for quite a long while. It was this FTC lawsuit that got me interested in posting...


But you stated you had not read the Lawsuit.

Quote:
rdalek: ...I have not read the lawsuit because...


Quote:
Molakule: ...Do have something new to add in terms of supporting technical data or defining court cases,...


I will take that as a no.


I never said I read the lawsuit. I have read ABOUT the lawsuit here and in a couple other places in the past.

I'll be glad when you can add some common sense to this topic. So far, you have not shown that.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Or, do you mean the white paper thing about liquid molecules and iron? Please forgive me, but the engines I've seen have aluminum pistons. I've never seen an automobile piston made of iron. Iron pistons went out with steam engines and for good reason. The weight of the piston and stress on the connecting rod is the limiting factor in engine design, which is why Ferraris have flat-12's or v-12's rather than larger bore 6's or V-8's.

Iron pistons? You are nuts.

That's desperation, folks.

Please forgive me as well, but your ignorance of basic science and engineering, such as physics and IC engines, is still showing through.

Take my simple algebraic equations from the White Paper and using aluminum or silicon-aluminum alloys, use the cubical lattice structure of those alloys (available on Wiki) and go through the same calculations.

Then report back here the results. Can you do that for us?

I recommend you review IC engines on the web and them maybe you could speak with some portion of knowledge.

Please tell us from what metal piston rings are constructed? Can you do that for us?

 

[dave1251]

There was nothing misstated on Trajan's reply. Why do you want to throw the settlement out? The settlement was your claim that zmax did something.

In civil trials, the agreement is called a settlement. In a settlement, the defendant makes a payment to the plaintiff for dropping the case. A settlement usually occurs because the defendant doesn't want to risk a large judgment at trial, while the plaintiff doesn't want to risk getting nothing at all. Unlike in a plea bargain, the defendant does not admit to any wrongdoing.

Parities in lawsuits do not settle if the court is going to rule in their favor.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
I never said I read the lawsuit. I have read ABOUT the lawsuit here and in a couple other places in the past.

I'll be glad when you can add some common sense to this topic. So far, you have not shown that.


Read my previous post on civil trials.

Read the lawsuit numerous posts, explanations, and what zmax lost in restitution and marketing claims. All this information was spoon fed throughout this topic.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: 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.



Bump.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
There was nothing misstated on Trajan's reply. Why do you want to throw the settlement out? The settlement was your claim that zmax did something.

In civil trials, the agreement is called a settlement. In a settlement, the defendant makes a payment to the plaintiff for dropping the case. A settlement usually occurs because the defendant doesn't want to risk a large judgment at trial, while the plaintiff doesn't want to risk getting nothing at all. Unlike in a plea bargain, the defendant does not admit to any wrongdoing.

Parities in lawsuits do not settle if the court is going to rule in their favor.


I don't believe all of that. The FTC seems to have got to the discovery stage and realized it filed a lawsuit to fast. That is why the FTC had to agree to let ZMax keep making basically the same claims. ZMax most likely made a financial decision to go along with the FTC dropping the case since it could still sell its product with claims that wouldn't change the sales of its product. Businesses do this sort of thing all the time even when they are close to or even 100% in the right. It's cheaper to go along with a settlement and let it be dropped than it is to drag the court battle out, especially when it is the Govt with pretty much endless funds that is being fought.

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: rdalek
I never said I read the lawsuit. I have read ABOUT the lawsuit here and in a couple other places in the past.

I'll be glad when you can add some common sense to this topic. So far, you have not shown that.


Read my previous post on civil trials.

Read the lawsuit numerous posts, explanations, and what zmax lost in restitution and marketing claims. All this information was spoon fed throughout this topic.


You know, I don't need you to tell me to read something I am familiar enough with. I know what I need to know already. I know the END RESULT. The FTC had to settle this case without going to trial. It didn't change the claims enough to matter and as I posted before, if a person wasn't satisfied with the product, they could already get their money back without a court order or the FTC filing a lawsuit that it had to later find a hole to get out of.

We are back to this question. Explain why the FTC still allows basically the same claims as before? The before and after doesn't seem to be worth all the effort for the FTC. Until you can explain that, you are wasting time and I will continue to post the same thing until you can answer the question with something that makes sense.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
We are back to this question. Explain why the FTC still allows basically the same claims as before? The before and after doesn't seem to be worth all the effort for the FTC. Until you can explain that, you are wasting time and I will continue to post the same thing until you can answer the question with something that makes sense.


Another sign of sheer desperation!

 

[dave1251]

It is simple. If a party is going to have the court rule in their favor the party does not settle to pay court cost, restitution, and the right to market their product as they see fit. The defendant in this case the makers of zmax would not agree to settle to lose money and loss of marketing claims.

In other words. Common sense the end result losing money and marketing privileges as the direct result of a civil lawsuit is not winning, coming out on top, the inverse is true.

 

[demarpaint]

Mercy lock?

 

[dave1251]

"You don't throw rocks at a man with a machine gun!"

Roddy Piper.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Or, do you mean the white paper thing about liquid molecules and iron? Please forgive me, but the engines I've seen have aluminum pistons. I've never seen an automobile piston made of iron. Iron pistons went out with steam engines and for good reason. The weight of the piston and stress on the connecting rod is the limiting factor in engine design, which is why Ferraris have flat-12's or v-12's rather than larger bore 6's or V-8's.

Iron pistons? You are nuts.

That's desperation, folks.

Please forgive me as well, but your ignorance of basic science and engineering, such as physics and IC engines, is still showing through.

Take my simple algebraic equations from the White Paper and using aluminum or silicon-aluminum alloys, use the cubical lattice structure of those alloys (available on Wiki) and go through the same calculations.

Then report back here the results. Can you do that for us?

I recommend you review IC engines on the web and them maybe you could speak with some portion of knowledge.

Please tell us from what metal piston rings are constructed? Can you do that for us?


Maybe he can do a White Paper that explains just how Zmax works? Using engineering and physics? (I just can't say that with a straight face....)

Really, really, getting desperate he is

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Mercy lock?

LOL

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
We are back to this question. Explain why the FTC still allows basically the same claims as before? The before and after doesn't seem to be worth all the effort for the FTC. Until you can explain that, you are wasting time and I will continue to post the same thing until you can answer the question with something that makes sense.


Another sign of sheer desperation!

There is no desperation on my part, only yours. You can't answer that question with anything that makes common sense so you avoid it. The point still stands, regardless of what you think about ZMax, the FTC still allows those claims which isn't much different than the original. If ZMax is as bad as you claim it to be, then the FTC would NOT have settled and allowed ZMax to make those claims. It is obvious that ZMax proved their product claims to the FTC.

So, whenever you can explain that, then I'm willing to listen to what you have to add. Until then, you are not just out of ideas, you are out of facts as well. Keep posting tho. Eventually, you just may get it. If not, I'll keep posting in reply until you do.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
We are back to this question. Explain why the FTC still allows basically the same claims as before? The before and after doesn't seem to be worth all the effort for the FTC. Until you can explain that, you are wasting time and I will continue to post the same thing until you can answer the question with something that makes sense.


Another sign of sheer desperation!

At least they got off of the "FAA approval means it is beneficial" nonsense.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Mercy lock?


That is desperation. No one can answer the question so just lock the thread. Yep. That's the only way this can be settled it would seem. Some folks just can't or won't use common sense.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
3) On several occasions, you have stated that if you don't understand something, then that thing cannot possibly be so. What a world view! It would be more productive and informative to talk to a stone.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
...doesn't understand technical data, or is ignoring the data I presented, or both (most likely scenario), because it doesn't fit his distorted paradigm.

The data you presented? Do you mean the 2 2-pack bottles of Zmax you bought, but did not use? That you may have done some research on, but couldn't remember? That you could somehow form an opinion on the product without ever using it?


The first sentence was in reference to you Zarch about not understanding basic science and what it takes prove a claim.

Again, your reading verses comprehension is sorely lacking Zarch.

The reason I bought a total of four (4) bottles was so I could run some bench tests in addition to using the fluids in my test mules (vehicles).

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
We are back to this question. Explain why the FTC still allows basically the same claims as before? The before and after doesn't seem to be worth all the effort for the FTC. Until you can explain that, you are wasting time and I will continue to post the same thing until you can answer the question with something that makes sense.

Another sign of sheer desperation!

Look in the Court's order in the section entitled Conduct Prohibitions.

In Part 1 is says that...
"the Defendants... shall not make any representation... that such product
A. increases gas mileage.
B. increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10% or by any other percentage, miles-per-gallon, dollar or other figure;
C. reduces engine wear;
D. reduces or eliminates engine wear at startup;
E. reduces engine corrosion;
F. extends engine life, or
G. reduces emissions.
unless at the time the representation is made, Defendants possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence which substantiates the representation."

In the letter of December 22, 2002 (incorporated in the Court's order, and attached at the end of the order), the Defendants proposed that they would advertise the following for their product, specifically that
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.

and for each of these representations, Zmax/Oil-chem cited a specific document or documents which they said supported their proposed representations.

The FTC, after reviewing this documentation, said, in writing (letter of December 26, 2002) that this was okay.

This is reality. Molakule can trash all the Federal agencies he chooses and dismiss all the engineering reports with which he disagrees (but has not read) as 'innuendo and pseudo-science'. But the FAA and FTC have either staff members or consultants that evaluate technical evidence. The Zmax evidence got evaluated. The FTC said okay. End of story.

Readers can decide who won and who lost. But how many companies can you name where the FTC has actually APPROVED your advertising hype?

How many times does the FTC (or any government agency) back off a case they think they can win?

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
It is simple. If a party is going to have the court rule in their favor the party does not settle to pay court cost, restitution, and the right to market their product as they see fit. The defendant in this case the makers of zmax would not agree to settle to lose money and loss of marketing claims.

In other words. Common sense the end result losing money and marketing privileges as the direct result of a civil lawsuit is not winning, coming out on top, the inverse is true.



Quoted for truth.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Mercy lock?


That is desperation. No one can answer the question so just lock the thread. Yep. That's the only way this can be settled it would seem. Some folks just can't or won't use common sense.


That would be the easy way out for you and Zarch.

Zarch, the poster who first suggested terminating the thread,
because the whole he dug was way over head.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Mercy lock?


That is desperation. No one can answer the question so just lock the thread. Yep. That's the only way this can be settled it would seem. Some folks just can't or won't use common sense.


So when will you and Zarch start using it? A mercy lock would be only to stop the beating you guys are taking.