Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
At least they got off of the "FAA approval means it is beneficial" nonsense.


Of course the topic would come back to here. Still nothing of substance is posted from the pro zmax side.


Yet still no one can answer my question. Hoping one of you will figure out a answer soon but I doubt it. It's just difficult to get around the fact that the FTC allows the claims even tho a few here say they are not true or proven.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
When you can make your case I will be waiting.

Agreeing to a court order to lose money is not a sign of legitimate business.


Did a google search. This is in a different area as far as this being a computer company but still the same point. Lawsuits are settled even when the person/company that is getting sued did nothing wrong but doesn't want to spend the money to prove it. Found this link in one of the first few hits.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201105...se-period.shtml

Quote:
Red Hat's CEO recently made waves in the technology world by stating that "at some point, it's better to settle than fight these things out." The horror! The surprise! But it's not really either of those; it's just plain true.


In case you are not familiar, Redhat is a large business. Companies of all sizes have to chose whether it is cheaper to settle or fight lawsuits. A lot of the time, it is a economic decision. If a company or individual has a money pool big enough to fight then they may do just that if they must. Very few companies/individuals have that tho. When they don't have those resources, they are sometimes forced to settle even if they don't get what they want. In this case tho, ZMax came out with the FTC approval for basically the same claims it made before. It's product survived the lawsuit and they got their basic claims approved by the FTC on top of that.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Are those violins I hear in the background playing the same old music?

The FTC "allowed" Zmax to make certain claims after the suit and then the FTC stated they would continue to monitor Oil-Chems claims.

Zmax essentially "copped a plea" of nolo contendere to avoid any further actions.



If it is, it's your violins. You STILL have NOT answered my question but you made another point for ME. The FTC is monitoring the claims and has not taken any action. That means that the claims are still proven otherwise the FTC would have been back in court. Thanks for making a point for me. You may get it eventually but you are slow. Yep, those violins are yours, not mine.


You realize during the time of this Red Hat settlement Red Hat was also fighting a law suit from its own share holders accusing Red Hat of engaging in fraud. Rather than default on the lawsuit for patent infringement Red Hat executives decided to settle and focus all available resources onto the case Red Hat had against its own shareholders.

Also companies do not settle to lose money.

 

[dave1251]

Your questions have been answered. Please explain what you do not understand.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Your questions have been answered. Please explain what you do not understand.


No it has not so I understand it very well but you seem to have missed it, again. I have posted it many times. As I said before, until that question can be answered with common sense, the claims stand as the FTC allows.

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
When you can make your case I will be waiting.

Agreeing to a court order to lose money is not a sign of legitimate business.


Did a google search. This is in a different area as far as this being a computer company but still the same point. Lawsuits are settled even when the person/company that is getting sued did nothing wrong but doesn't want to spend the money to prove it. Found this link in one of the first few hits.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201105...se-period.shtml

Quote:
Red Hat's CEO recently made waves in the technology world by stating that "at some point, it's better to settle than fight these things out." The horror! The surprise! But it's not really either of those; it's just plain true.


In case you are not familiar, Redhat is a large business. Companies of all sizes have to chose whether it is cheaper to settle or fight lawsuits. A lot of the time, it is a economic decision. If a company or individual has a money pool big enough to fight then they may do just that if they must. Very few companies/individuals have that tho. When they don't have those resources, they are sometimes forced to settle even if they don't get what they want. In this case tho, ZMax came out with the FTC approval for basically the same claims it made before. It's product survived the lawsuit and they got their basic claims approved by the FTC on top of that.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Are those violins I hear in the background playing the same old music?

The FTC "allowed" Zmax to make certain claims after the suit and then the FTC stated they would continue to monitor Oil-Chems claims.

Zmax essentially "copped a plea" of nolo contendere to avoid any further actions.



If it is, it's your violins. You STILL have NOT answered my question but you made another point for ME. The FTC is monitoring the claims and has not taken any action. That means that the claims are still proven otherwise the FTC would have been back in court. Thanks for making a point for me. You may get it eventually but you are slow. Yep, those violins are yours, not mine.


You realize during the time of this Red Hat settlement Red Hat was also fighting a law suit from its own share holders accusing Red Hat of engaging in fraud. Rather than default on the lawsuit for patent infringement Red Hat executives decided to settle and focus all available resources onto the case Red Hat had against its own shareholders.

Also companies do not settle to lose money.


Doesn't change the point tho does it? Companies settle lawsuits for all sorts of reasons even if they did nothing wrong. Sometimes a company can't afford to fight a lawsuit and do other things that needs doing so they settle instead. It doesn't change the point that settling a lawsuit doesn't mean a business is bad or did anything wrong.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
At least they got off of the "FAA approval means it is beneficial" nonsense.


Of course the topic would come back to here. Still nothing of substance is posted from the pro zmax side.


Nothing at all. What can one expect when people *insist* that if the settlement document doesn't say restitution then having to pay money isn't restitution....

 

[123Saab]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Guys, *I* ran out of popcorn a while ago; this movie needs to end now! Anybody else *not* yet bored with this utterly useless urination contest??


That decision would be up to the mods.


Or grown ups.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
At least they got off of the "FAA approval means it is beneficial" nonsense.


Of course the topic would come back to here. Still nothing of substance is posted from the pro zmax side.


Nothing at all. What can one expect when people *insist* that if the settlement document doesn't say restitution then having to pay money isn't restitution....


Yet you still can't answer my question that is really so simple. You can either answer it or you don't because you can't. Do I need to post this question yet again? It's not like I haven't asked the question several times and you and a couple others just ignore the stuffin out of it.

Originally Posted By: 123Saab
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Guys, *I* ran out of popcorn a while ago; this movie needs to end now! Anybody else *not* yet bored with this utterly useless urination contest??


That decision would be up to the mods.


Or grown ups.


Well, I'm grown up. I wish a couple others would be grown up enough to answer my question tho. I might add, I'm a mod on a political site and we have some really good debates. People that can't answer a simple question and ignore the question repeatedly usually figure it out. I find it odd that one person makes a post that even supports my position and still can't answer the question.

Anytime you guys get ready, I'm here.

 

[Trajan]

Giver that the Zarchites have done everything except explain just how Zmax works in a world of physics or chemistry, the only conclusion is.....

Zmax is not worth a [censored].

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Giver that the Zarchites have done everything except explain just how Zmax works in a world of physics or chemistry, the only conclusion is.....

Zmax is not worth a [censored].


Yet again, another missed opportunity to answer my question. I am still waiting. When are you going to answer that question?

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
At least they got off of the "FAA approval means it is beneficial" nonsense.


Of course the topic would come back to here. Still nothing of substance is posted from the pro zmax side.


Nothing at all. What can one expect when people *insist* that if the settlement document doesn't say restitution then having to pay money isn't restitution....


Yet you still can't answer my question that is really so simple. You can either answer it or you don't because you can't. Do I need to post this question yet again? It's not like I haven't asked the question several times and you and a couple others just ignore the stuffin out of it.

Originally Posted By: 123Saab
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Guys, *I* ran out of popcorn a while ago; this movie needs to end now! Anybody else *not* yet bored with this utterly useless urination contest??


That decision would be up to the mods.


Or grown ups.


Well, I'm grown up. I wish a couple others would be grown up enough to answer my question tho. I might add, I'm a mod on a political site and we have some really good debates. People that can't answer a simple question and ignore the question repeatedly usually figure it out. I find it odd that one person makes a post that even supports my position and still can't answer the question.

Anytime you guys get ready, I'm here.


I do not believe you are ready. Unlike the example you provided in Red Hat. The settlement of the FTC vs Speedway is this. Red Hat after many lawsuits that Red Hat won against allegations of patent infringement in this particular case Red Hat settled and the terms of the settlement are unknown. The case files made available on this case of the settlement financial terms have been redacted. Thus the public does not know how much Red Hat is paying in royalty fees on each violation on each patent. Also I will add Red Hat did reach a settlement with its own share holders for 20 million dollars in its fraud lawsuit. This is important because what would happen to a company that is already infighting with its shareholders on fraud allegations if its C.E.O. admitted to patent infringement in another lawsuit? Thus the C.E.O. of Red Hat made no statement of wrongdoing but Red Hat did pay restitution. If Red Hat had nothing to hide it would fight this case especially considering stockholder confidence was low at this point and patent infringement royalty fees are very pretty penny.

In the case of FTC vs Speedway.
Zmax made public restitution, lost marketing claims, and the only claims zmax can make now is removes deposits. Zmax can not claim

"I was averaging about 22 miles to the gallon on the highway. I installed the zMax and so I jumped right up to about 28 miles per gallon;" and "zMax guarantees a minimum of 10 percent gas mileage increase." Other marketing and promotional pieces claim, "zMax with LinKite has the scientific, CRC L38 proof it takes your car to the MAX!" and "Why zMAX Works - Cuts carbon build-up on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on piston skirts 60%; Reduces blow-by leakage 17.7%; Increases combustion efficiency 9.25%; Lowers fuel consumption 8.5%."

increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10%
eliminates engine wear at startup;
reduces engine corrosion;
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 last piece of the pie is this disclaimer from the makers of zmax themselves.
[CAPTION: 27% INCREASE IN GAS MILEAGE!]
[CAPTION: YOUR RESULTS WILL VARY]
R: Now, don’t forget, your 10 percent
increase in gas mileage is guaranteed minimum.
Lots of cars do even better.
: [Z-MAX] Micro lubrication reduces
friction giving you increased gas mileage.
[CAPTION: INCREASE GAS MILEAGE!] Z-MAX lowers
engine temperature so your car runs cooler
And Z-
MAX keeps the metal wet and protected virtually
eliminating dry start-up damage even in cold
weather. [CAPTION: ELIMINATE DRY START DAMAGE!]”



LEE HOLMAN HOLMAN MOODY RACING LEGENDARY ENGINE
BUILDERS: The L38 test, the way they run it, is
done with a standard engine. And it measures not
only the horsepower and the fuel efficiency and
the use of fuel and the amount of oil and blow-by
that you get on the engine, but it also allows you
to check very accurately the wear on the valves,
the wear on the piston rings, as well as the
carbon buildup. And that’s what impressed me on
the L38 test. With this product, you find that it
makes a difference. [BAR CHART DEPICTS Z-MAX
INCREASING ‘PERFORMANCE’ AND ‘FUEL EFFICIENCY,’
DECREASING ‘WEAR’] This engine ran better, will
run longer, has less wear; its astounding what the
report says it will do.

The CRC L38 test protocol, referenced in zMax
advertisements, including, but not limited to, Exhibits 1 through
4, is a laboratory engine test protocol that has been accepted as
an automotive industry standard only for purposes of measuring the
bearing corrosion performance of motor oils.

Thus the makers of zmax have been caught falsifying test results and unable to make the same claims as before the settlement.

Now the supporters of zmax can not substantiate current claims either.

I will await for "And then?"

 

[dave1251]

Dude Where's My Car?

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Well, I'm grown up. I wish a couple others would be grown up enough to answer my question tho. I might add, I'm a mod on a political site and we have some really good debates. People that can't answer a simple question and ignore the question repeatedly usually figure it out. I find it odd that one person makes a post that even supports my position and still can't answer the question.

Anytime you guys get ready, I'm here.



Throwing in another off-topic comment is not a good debating strategy. I seriously doubt you have any Forensics training because of your immature and absurd comments and your lack of topical focus.

Honestly guys, my 6 year old grandson is more mature, can carry on a conversation, and can understand cause and effect better than Zarch and Zerch.

So unless some supporting technical data from Zarch and Zerch is put forth, I would ignore any responses.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251


ONE HUGE SNIP.

I will await for "And then?"


All that and it still does not answer my question. It doesn't even approach the subject of the question. Why not stop avoiding the REAL question and just answer it.

Once again, I'm still waiting for a answer to my question from waaaaaaay back and have asked many times. If you can not answer the question, please don't post another long reply that has nothing to do with it.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Well, I'm grown up. I wish a couple others would be grown up enough to answer my question tho. I might add, I'm a mod on a political site and we have some really good debates. People that can't answer a simple question and ignore the question repeatedly usually figure it out. I find it odd that one person makes a post that even supports my position and still can't answer the question.

Anytime you guys get ready, I'm here.



Throwing in another off-topic comment is not a good debating strategy. I seriously doubt you have any Forensics training because of your immature and absurd comments and your lack of topical focus.

Honestly guys, my 6 year old grandson is more mature, can carry on a conversation, and can understand cause and effect better than Zarch and Zerch.

So unless some supporting technical data from Zarch and Zerch is put forth, I would ignore any responses.


Given the posts you have made and your inability to answer my question, I don't blame you and hope you do just that. Until someone can answer my question, the replies here are worthless. Your grandson may be able to act older than you. I do very well for my age and have been told so many many times.

So, answer my question or take your own advice and stop posting. I do want to thank you for making a point for me tho.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Well, I'm grown up. I wish a couple others would be grown up enough to answer my question tho. I might add, I'm a mod on a political site and we have some really good debates. People that can't answer a simple question and ignore the question repeatedly usually figure it out. I find it odd that one person makes a post that even supports my position and still can't answer the question.

Anytime you guys get ready, I'm here.



Throwing in another off-topic comment is not a good debating strategy. I seriously doubt you have any Forensics training because of your immature and absurd comments and your lack of topical focus.

Honestly guys, my 6 year old grandson is more mature, can carry on a conversation, and can understand cause and effect better than Zarch and Zerch.

So unless some supporting technical data from Zarch and Zerch is put forth, I would ignore any responses.


To have a debate, there has to be a topic.

Oh, wait, we have one. And it isn't the difference between civil and criminal trials. It isn't about what constitutes restitution. (And since there is a legal definition of what that is, they have nothing to debate there. Not thst that little detail stops them)

It's...................... wait for it.................wait for it......................

Is Zmaz worth a [censored]!!!!

And the Zarchites have yet to provide *anything* outside of the company line. Certainly nothing that shows just soaks into metal.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Well, I'm grown up. I wish a couple others would be grown up enough to answer my question tho. I might add, I'm a mod on a political site and we have some really good debates. People that can't answer a simple question and ignore the question repeatedly usually figure it out. I find it odd that one person makes a post that even supports my position and still can't answer the question.

Anytime you guys get ready, I'm here.



Throwing in another off-topic comment is not a good debating strategy. I seriously doubt you have any Forensics training because of your immature and absurd comments and your lack of topical focus.

Honestly guys, my 6 year old grandson is more mature, can carry on a conversation, and can understand cause and effect better than Zarch and Zerch.

So unless some supporting technical data from Zarch and Zerch is put forth, I would ignore any responses.


To have a debate, there has to be a topic.

Oh, wait, we have one. And it isn't the difference between civil and criminal trials. It isn't about what constitutes restitution. (And since there is a legal definition of what that is, they have nothing to debate there. Not thst that little detail stops them)

It's...................... wait for it.................wait for it......................

Is Zmaz worth a [censored]!!!!

And the Zarchites have yet to provide *anything* outside of the company line. Certainly nothing that shows just soaks into metal.



And yet again, no answer to my question. I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question and it seems no one here has a clue on a answer and it is about ZMax and what it claims to do so it is on topic. You guys are the one that keeps trying to avoid the question.

I'm still waiting for that answer tho.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: rdalek


So, answer my question or take your own advice and stop posting. I do want to thank you for making a point for me tho.


And thank you Zerch for making my point----again:

Quote:
I seriously doubt you have any Forensics training because of your immature and absurd comments and your lack of topical focus.


Add to that that neither Zarch or Zerch can't come up with any tribological explanations simply shows they have only two tactics:

One is by the repetition of unsubstantiated technical claims that they themselves do not understand and cannot prove, and the other is of this form:

"You give me the answer I want to hear (an answer that doesn't have to be logical or make sense), or I will act like an obstinate, pouting 7 year old child."

Quite frankly Zerch, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: rdalek


So, answer my question or take your own advice and stop posting. I do want to thank you for making a point for me tho.


And thank you Zerch for making my point----again:

Quote:
I seriously doubt you have any Forensics training because of your immature and absurd comments and your lack of topical focus.


Add to that that neither Zarch or Zerch can't come up with any tribological explanations simply shows they have only two tactics:

One is by the repetition of unsubstantiated technical claims that they themselves do not understand and cannot prove, and the other is of this form:

"You give me the answer I want to hear (an answer that doesn't have to be logical or make sense), or I will act like an obstinate, pouting 7 year old child."

Quite frankly Zerch, you're embarassing yourself.



Agree. Except it isn't an act

 

[dave1251]

The answer you seek has been provided to you.

You have ignored the answer which is your right. To state your question has not been answered is not correct.

Supporters have not provided the so called money back guarantee, the validity of a FAA type certificate(ensures it will not cause an plane crash), ignored the fact that "industry standard test" claimed by zmax are not engine performance tests are in
fact automotive industry standard only for purposes of measuring the bearing corrosion performance of motor oils., and have been unable to provide technical data to support zmax claims.

Zmax supports have demonstrated the inability to refute civil court settlements and have resorted to straw-man arguments by providing quotes from representatives of other corporations about unrelated cases. The preceding examples are not actions to foster discussion and debate.

Supporters or supporter post to your hearts desire about "common sense" and consistently repeat question not answered. Much like the product you support.

Claims are not able to be substantiated.

 

[dave1251]

In other words.

Is Z-max worth a [censored]?

Supporters are unable to provide evidence to support Z-max's is own claims.

The makers of Z-max will be happy to take your 39.99 any day of the week.