Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trajan

MMO promoters are the same way.....



LOL

are we? Two can play at that game, but I'd rather not. At least now we know how it starts. LOL Why not stay on the Zmax topic and quit fishing?

The same can be said of promoters of other products too. Maybe we should leave it at that..........

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: rdalek

ONE LARGE SNIP of worthless dribble that still does not dispute the known facts.


Oh I agree. So when will you stop with the worthless dribble and get around to proving that the claims of your product are true.


About the same time you guys can answer my question that you still ignore. For people who claims they know so much more than anyone else, you guys sure do avoid that question as if it is a plague or something. When avoiding the question wasn't working, the name calling started. When I called that out for what it was, back to avoiding the question.

When are you going to explain to me how ZMax has approval from the FTC to claim what it does when you claim it doesn't do it and it isn't proven? Now, keep posting your avoiding posts and run circles around it for as long as you like but until I get a answer to that, your posts are meaningless.

By the way, I found the ignore option for the name calling member.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Trajan

MMO promoters are the same way.....

Two can play at that game, but I'd rather not.

Please don't. Those attacking Zmax have gone from the ridiculous to the sublime on their own - they don't need any encouragement.

In an earlier message, I posed two straightforward questions to Molakule:

- What material is Super Oilite or Super Oilite 16 made of?
- Does oil soak into this material?

Rather than simply respond, Molakule is back in full insult mode. Clearly this is going nowhere.

To answer the questions, Super Oilite and Super Oilite 16 are both sintered iron. And, oil will soak into both materials - that's how an Oilite bearing or bush works. Sintered iron is a metal. Conclusion: Zmax, which is >99% thin oil, will soak into metal.

Is there anyone reading this who is genuinely surprised? Joe Lencki, the inventor of Zmax, was a senior official with Chrysler Corporation at the time Chrysler was inventing the Oilite bearing. In all likelihood, the research for Zmax was done in Chrysler's Amplex division labs - the timing certainly makes sense. Or, maybe the research was done in Dodge's Chicago aircraft facility where Lencki managed construction of B-29's.

Several times, Molakule has blathered on about diffusion, even resorting to a large font to shout out his diffusion message. I don't recall Zmax claiming to diffuse into metal. If Zmax has ever claimed to diffuse into metal, would someone point this out, and the source? If a person resorts to this kind of logic, they could discredit any product: MMO is a fraud because it does not extend battery life. Liqui-Moly MoS2 is no good because it does not prevent flat tires.

The claim was: Zmax soaks into metal. They made this claim before the FTC action. They can make this claim after the FTC action, only now with FTC approval. Is anyone surprised by this? Seriously? And, if you examine most of the other Zmax claims, they involve loosening or dissolving deposits - about what you might expect from a very thin oil. Again, is anyone surprised by this?

---

The FAA is a decent federal agency which keeps our airways safe. They certainly didn't deserve a trashing from Molakule - both an agency and product about which he is clueless.

I'm not so sure about the FTC, but in this case justice seems to have been served - Zmax could go on making their advertising claims, only now with FTC approval. LOL

Finally, there are a lot of honest decent folks working in science or engineering related fields who try to keep an open mind and apply scientific principles to evaluating problems or claims. Science is not some cheap hustle you distort to attack a particular product you personally dislike. It's a disservice to all of them to use the jargon of science in such an approach.

It's been fun.

---

A special note to Trajan, who seems to be obsessed with MMO, and can't stop mentioning it in every thread, no matter how off-topic. Please be aware that Chrysler (the same company that invented Oilite bearings, and who once employed Joe Lencki, and probably did the research for Zmax) sold Marvel Inverse Oilers (a 1-gallon monster model!) under their own name plus MMO to go in the oiler. It was either a standard feature or an option on some early Chrysler New Yorkers! If you own one of these (either the oiler or the New Yorker), they are really collectors item. So Trajan, if you ever had any doubts about MMO, now your worst fantasies are confirmed. Take care.

 

[kschachn]

OK, now you are getting into something I know something about. Diffusion is simply something moving from a region of high concentration to a region of low concentration. Nothing else. There are different types of diffusion, but the principle is the same. "Soaking" and "diffusion" in your context is no different. One would assume that prior to the addition of zMAX the metal has a low concentration of additive. The concentration of zMAZ in the oil would be higher. If the zMAX moves from the high concentration oil to the low concentration metal that is diffusion.

Those sintered metal bushings have closely controlled porosity such that the oil can be trapped within spaces between the metal particles. No problem there, but even in this case the oil is not "soaking" into the metal. It is being displaced into the inter-granular space between the sintered metal particles. You can look at the bushing under an SEM and see those spaces all day long. The oil is not going between the metal atoms.

As an aside I have never seen any large molecule such as a hydrocarbon diffuse nor "soak" into a metal.

Originally Posted By: dave5358
To answer the questions, Super Oilite and Super Oilite 16 are both sintered iron. And, oil will soak into both materials - that's how an Oilite bearing or bush works. Sintered iron is a metal. Conclusion: Zmax, which is >99% thin oil, will soak into metal.

Several times, Molakule has blathered on about diffusion, even resorting to a large font to shout out his diffusion message. I don't recall Zmax claiming to diffuse into metal. If Zmax has ever claimed to diffuse into metal, would someone point this out, and the source? If a person resorts to this kind of logic, they could discredit any product: MMO is a fraud because it does not extend battery life. Liqui-Moly MoS2 is no good because it does not prevent flat tires.

The claim was: Zmax soaks into metal. They made this claim before the FTC action. They can make this claim after the FTC action, only now with FTC approval. Is anyone surprised by this? Seriously? And, if you examine most of the other Zmax claims, they involve loosening or dissolving deposits - about what you might expect from a very thin oil. Again, is anyone surprised by this?

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
The question still stands, why does the FTC allow ZMax to make the claims it does if it is not proven that they are true.


Okay, "Dale":

The answer is, hold your breath, because the FTC did not have a technical staff capable of critically evaluating those tests using physics, chemistry, or tribology.


ONE LARGE SNIP of worthless dribble that still does not dispute the known facts.


But after posting all that, the FACT still stands that the FTC APPROVED the current claims, which is basically the same as before, and permits to this day ZMax to make the claims which means ZMax was able to provide proof that satisfied the FTC in court and is part of a court agreement. It is a matter of court record that ZMax can make those claims because the FTC agrees with it because ZMax was able to prove that it does it. You can keep posting your so called science and other junk but it does NOT change that FACT.

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Your own words prove you do not understand what the FTC lawsuit entailed nor do you understand that the makers of Zmax lost the privilege of making claims that are unsubstantiated.


But you can not explain why the FTC APPROVED the current claims, basically the same as before once again, and to this day still allows the current claims. I understand this because I see a common sense answer but it seems people here do not see what is plainly there. ZMax has approval to make current claims, which basically is the same as before, because they were proven to the satisfaction of the FTC in court. If ZMax didn't, the FTC wouldn't allow it. Can no one besides me and Dave5358 see this?

Originally Posted By: 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.


No, you have yet to be able to prove that the court order does not allow ZMax to make its current claims, which is basically the same as before. Until you can dispute that, you can not answer my question. You and a couple others can not grasp the fact that to answer my question, you have to show that the FTC did not approve the current claims, which it did according to your very own posts, and is a part of the court agreement when the FTC dropped its lawsuit. When you can do that, then you can start working on a answer. Until then, you can not.

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Zmax can no longer make the preceding claims. You claim you have read the lawsuit. If you did or comprehended the lawsuit the FTC did not file an injunction to for Zmax to cease business and all advertising. The injunction was to cease fraudulent claims named in the suite which I have already provided once and is quoted in this post. Because the injunction did not name current marketing claims made by the makers of zmax does not meet the definition of the FTC endorses zmax claims. For two reason the FTC is a government regulation agency and it does not endorse products.


But it does make the current claims since ZMax proved them true otherwise the FTC would NOT have APPROVED the claims.

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Now you can continue to claim you do not understand. Which is not an admission of fault nor against your character. To continue to state your questions have not been answered is admission of fault against your character.


I do not claim to not understand, I claim that you don't. HUGE difference. The fault lies with the fact that you can NOT prove that the FTC didn't approve the current claims because it is a fact that you can not dispute.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Character assassination will not dissuade me from criticizing any product that cannot prove it efficacy. One of the first products I criticized and exposed was the old Blue Bottle of STP.


Yet you resort to childish name calling and then turn around and call other people childish. I'm to the point that you have lost ALL credibility and respect on this or any other topic with me. Your posts have shown your nature and lack of skills when it comes to discussing a topic. It is exceptionally rare that any of your posts do anything but waste space and the time it takes to read them. I may look into a block option if this site has one. I don't have a problem with me spending time discussing a topic with someone who can be respectful but you don't fit in that category. While you may have improved in recent posts with the name calling, the content is still worthless.


Because you do not understand, does not equal question not answered. I doubt any opinion you express on this matter and what you have expressed is merely opinion can be seriously considered. Due to the simple fact I have asked one simple request. Provide the money back guarantee in writing. I will leave you to answer the technical questions asked by others.

 

[dave1251]

You have been unable to provide the FTC press release endorsing zmax's claims. Thus your "point" about being FTC approved is invalid.

If you can provide what avblend's FAA type certificate is actually for then you can claim benefits in favor for avblend.

Without either your claims are without substance.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Dave 5358: Iron or steel, but it would hardly matter if the goal of the additive was to free-up the rings.


How do you know, by using physical and chemicals laws of nature, that it does that?

Dave5358, do you know how to discern the differences between goals, claims, and scientific proof?

Quote:
Dave5358: And two question for you:
What material is Super Oilite or Super Oilite 16 made of?
Does oil soak into this material?


A1: Oilite bearings are made by sintering (a process) individual particles of bronze or of iron metals.

If you need some help understanding the sintering process I will patiently explain it to you.

A2: The oil would reside in the spaces between the sintered metal particles. I,E., the bulk oil would enter the voids, the spaces between the sintered metal particles.

Oil entering voids between metal particles is not the same physical PROCESS as diffusion into metal cubic lattices. This is where both you and Zmax are totally confused.

And that is how you properly describe materials and processes using real science.

Questions for you Dave5358:

Dave5358 show me, using physical laws, how the oil molecules would enter the atomic cubic lattice structure of steel or aluminum?

BTW Dave5358, what material is used to manf. piston rings?

Dave5358, do you know the difference between sarcasm and character assassination?

 

[JHZR2]

One can easily pull inter-atomic spacing details from a variety of sources. A good source of data to give space groups and parameters that can then be run for nearest neighbor spacing is even available online:

http://cars9.uchicago.edu/~newville/adb/search.html

One can also get the atomic radii of carbon, and the rough molecular size of a typical hydrocarbon.

And then compare and explain to me how this is somehow going into inter-atomic spaces in a nearest neighbor configuration.

And with their "expert", why didnt they do in situ XAFS to show a new Fe-C nearest neighbor structure when Z-max impregnated? Thats an easy experiment to do and would be conclusive with a real in situ capability that probes at the atomic basis.

Atomic structure and particles ("boulders" or larger compared to atoms in a structure) are vastly different. Even if the sintered particles were nanosized down to the single digits, one can easily calculate just how many atoms are in there.

 

[MolaKule]

BTW Dave5358, kschachn gave you another explanation:

Originally Posted By: kschachn


Those sintered metal bushings have closely controlled porosity such that the oil can be trapped within spaces between the metal particles. No problem there, but even in this case the oil is not "soaking" into the metal. It is being displaced into the inter-granular space between the sintered metal particles. You can look at the bushing under an SEM and see those spaces all day long. The oil is not going between the metal atoms.

As an aside I have never seen any large molecule such as a hydrocarbon diffuse nor "soak" into a metal.


Emphasis mine to point out important statement.

Note his use of the terms soaking, porous, and inter-granular.

Inter-granular (between individual grains) is not the same as inter-atomic (between atoms).

Porosity is allowing oil to get into the inter-granular spaces.

Diffusion is allowing individual atoms or molecules to get into the inter-atomic spaces of the crystal lattice of iron or steel.

Soaking is always associated with (has a connection to) porosity. Soaking is never associated with diffusion.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
You have been unable to provide the FTC press release endorsing zmax's claims. Thus your "point" about being FTC approved is invalid.

If you can provide what avblend's FAA type certificate is actually for then you can claim benefits in favor for avblend.

Without either your claims are without substance.


And as neither the FTC or the FAA endorses products, it's going to remain invalid.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Dave5358 Several times, Molakule has blathered on about diffusion, even resorting to a large font to shout out his diffusion message. I don't recall Zmax claiming to diffuse into metal. If Zmax has ever claimed to diffuse into metal, would someone point this out, and the source?


Molekule is blathering

about this statement on Zmax's own website at http://www.zmax.com/documents/zmax-the_facts.pdf

Quote:
Metal Penetration - Arch Analytical Services (Cheshire, CT) utilized Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES) to assess the ability of ZMax to penetrate metal surfaces. A testing protocol was developed and tests were subsequently conducted on cast iron and aluminum alloy specimens similar in composition to metals used in current model automotive engines. The metal specimens were immersed in the test fluids for seven to fourteen days under temperature-cycled conditions (i.e., ambient to 100 °C to simulate some modes of an operating engine environment). Comparative tests of ZMax by itself and in blends with a commercial SAE 5W-30 SJ engine oil showed the ZMax by itself and when blended with the engine oil, penetrated both types of metal far deeper than engine oil alone. Although it was not possible to precisely quantify the difference in penetration depths between the engine oil, and the engine oil withZMax, measuring the percent Carbon (C) by AES revealed the presence of ZMax in the engine oil resulted in a 82% greater penetration ( i.e., % C for engine oil alone was 327% versus % C for engine oil with ZMax was 49%). This ability to soak (i.e., be absorbed) into metal surfaces is the key to ZMax's effectiveness.


So now Dave5358, after reading and studying and understanding the other technical posts about porosity and diffusion, do you now see why you and Zmax are totally confused about porosity and diffusion?

BTW, I will "blather" some more.

Zmax is improperly using the words "absorbed" and "soaks" in the same paragraph with a totally unsupportable statement about the AES spectroscopy experiment which says, the ability of ZMax to penetrate metal surfaces.

The statement, the ability of ZMax to penetrate metal surfaces is a claim. That claim is NOT supported by the results of their own AES experiement they supposedly did and which they have never released.

Penetration into metal or surfaces is diffusion, not soaking, not absorption.

Was this by design to confuse non-technical readers, or just sloppy technical reporting and an improper understanding of those physical processes?

And if they cannot get their story straight about one experiment, they what else are they confused about?????

 

[MolaKule]

Dave5358: Do you understand the following response to Dale?

Quote:

Dale: The question still stands, why does the FTC allow ZMax to make the claims it does if it is not proven that they are true.

Mola's Response: Okay, "Dale":

The answer is, hold your breath, because the FTC did not have a technical staff capable of critically evaluating those tests using physics, chemistry, or tribology.

Here are a few examples (and these comments have been presented before):

Under the heading of Engine Dynamometer Testing:

This text appears as the last sentence of each test,


Quote:
However, additional testing was not able to be conducted to statistically validate the observed improvements.


Okay, so if you cannot statistically differentiate the test data from the "noise," as we call it (a valid mathematical and statistical term), you cannot state any "observed improvements." The first part of that sentence is an admission of "non-proof." The last phrase of that sentence is a comment influenced by bias.

Under the heading of Metal Penetration:


Quote:
Arch Analytical Services (Cheshire, CT) utilized Auger
Electron Spectroscopy (AES) to assess the ability of Z Max to penetrate metal surfaces. A testing protocol was developed and tests were subsequently conducted on iron and aluminum specimens similar in composition to metals used in current model automotive engines. The metal specimens were immersed in the test fluids for seven to fourteen days under temperature-cycled conditions (i.e., ambient to 100 °C to simulate some modes of an operating engine environment). Comparative tests of ZMax by itself and in blends with a commercial SAE 5W-30 SJ engine oil showed the ZMax by itself and when blended with the engine oil, penetrated both types of metal far deeper than engine oil alone. Although it was not possible to precisely quantify the difference in penetration depths between the engine oil, and the engine oil with ZMax, measuring the percent Carbon (C) by AES revealed the presence of Z Max in the engine oil resulted in a 82% greater penetration ( i.e., % C for engine oil alone was 327% versus % C for engine oil with ZMax was 49%). This ability to soak (i.e., be absorbed) into metal surfaces[/i] is the key to ZMax's effectiveness.



If you cannot "quantify" the difference in penetration depths between Zmax by itself and the oil blend, then you have NO scientific basis on which to state the percentages.

Besides, this is not exactly how AES works, as explained by myself and others in previous (historical) threads.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
And with their "expert", why didnt they do in situ XAFS to show a new Fe-C nearest neighbor structure when Z-max impregnated? Thats an easy experiment to do and would be conclusive with a real in situ capability that probes at the atomic basis.

Atomic structure and particles ("boulders" or larger compared to atoms in a structure) are vastly different. Even if the sintered particles were nanosized down to the single digits, one can easily calculate just how many atoms are in there.

If these links have been posted before, forgive the duplication:

First is the Arch Analytical test, hopefully in a bit more detail. This is an archived PDF on Benz world, and you must open it with your Adobe Reader - it will not self-open (or, at least, it would not for me): Benz World archived report - Arch Analytical Zmax

Next is the affidavit of Maurice La Pera, the expert Zmax used and whose report was submitted to the FTC. In all likelihood, it was this sworn testimony that the FTC relied upon. La Pera was formerly the Associate Director for Fuels & Lubricants at the U.S. Army Mobility Technology Center-Belvoir at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. This would be the exact type of testimony the FTC would prefer to receive. FWIW, this is the person who selected Arch Analytical Services to perform the tests and he discusses what was done and why in a bit of detail. Affidavit of Maurice La Pera

Finally, this a 2005 document summary prepared by Zmax. It's not clear why they were doing this in 2005, and some of the information may be duplicates. June 7, 2005 document summary prepared by Zmax.

 

[kschachn]

I think I lost focus on this voluminous thread. Why is it important that zMAX "soaks" into the metal? What does that do you for you again? Anything important is taking place at the surface, right?

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251

Because you do not understand, does not equal question not answered. I doubt any opinion you express on this matter and what you have expressed is merely opinion can be seriously considered. Due to the simple fact I have asked one simple request. Provide the money back guarantee in writing. I will leave you to answer the technical questions asked by others.


I understand it just fine. You just can't figure a way around answering it.

I called ZMax. Little tidbits of my conversation. The claims made against the so called restitution, around 10% of the money was refunded. The rest wasn't claimed and George basically said it was a no questions allowed refund. A person could ask for a refund and it had to be given even if it worked like it should. That amount is up until the current time.

The FTC sued a lot of people around that same time and I'm pretty sure that is known on this thread. The FTC wanted to settle when it got to the discovery process and ZMax showed the FTC through the court the test results. At that point, some wording was changed but the product remains the same. The reason for the fund was the percentage on the fuel mileage, the rest wasn't part of it.

By the way, George also said that the claims it makes were proven scientifically and that is the only reason the FTC agreed to allow the claims and wanted to settle the lawsuit. So, say whatever you want, ZMax has proven that it does what it claims. That includes soaking or whatever you want to call it into the metal.

George is going to get me a copy of the warranty and email it to me as soon as he can. I'll post it when I get it. It is like most any other warranty of this type. If the product is shown to cause damage, ZMax will pay for the repair. Same as if you go to a oil change place and they forget to put the drain plug back in. ZMax will also refund your money if you are not satisfied with the product. You mail in the receipt and contact info. When they get it, they call, to make sure it is not some sort of scam, and then mail you a refund.

The phone call lasted about 25 minutes and George answered my questions very well. I also talked to the lady that answered the phone for about 5 minutes or so and she also had some info but felt it best to talk to George.

Some of you would likely be enlightened if you were to call and ask them questions yourself. It is quite apparent that a few people here would not believe anything regardless of what is proven anyway.

 

[SteveSRT8]

This thread has been informative, but a bit biased towards the 'egg heads' dissecting everything.

While I appreciate accuracy as much as many, it would seem obvious to me that Zmax's claims are MARKETING, not science.

Written by a sharp snake oil salesman, no doubt, but still not scientifically proven facts stated dryly for the brilliant to peruse. So words like "diffusion" would likely be replaced with simpler, more exciting words like "soaking into metal".

Make sense? I don't have a dog in this fight, but I love anecdotal stories. Frankly they are far more illuminating than this ENDLESS chit chat about details.

Carry on....

 

[rdalek]

OK. Here is the warranty info. I didn't read it because I don't feel the need. It is a pdf file. I hope it works since I have never used this file hosting site before. I'm also not sure how long it will be there so may want to hurry.

http://www6.zippyshare.com/v/72250513/file.html

Also, look at what I found that George told me about.

http://www.zmax.com/why/technical/

Quote:
zMAX spent $4.5 million testing our product to the FTC that zMAX works. The tests conducted on zMAX are based on accepted protocols as directed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). zMAX requires a "soak in" period in order to achieve maximum benefit, therefore, when necessary, the protocols have been modified only to include a "soak in" period for zMAX.


And look here as well:

http://www.zmax.com/why/benefits/

Quote:
The one product that soaks into metal, zMAX Micro-lubricant micro-molecules are reformulated to be smaller than regular oil molecules. This allows zMAX Micro-lubricant to more effectively reach internal parts to disperse carbon and other harmful deposits.


All that approved by the FTC lawsuit settlement. So, still want to answer my question or does this settle the discussion?

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
OK. Here is the warranty info. I didn't read it because I don't feel the need. It is a pdf file. I hope it works since I have never used this file hosting site before. I'm also not sure how long it will be there so may want to hurry.

http://www6.zippyshare.com/v/72250513/file.html


Fail. This is not an money back guarantee. This is an very limited warranty. So limited the consumer must prove that zmax caused engine failure.

Answer me this. How is the consumer going to prove this when the supporters can not answer how zmax can penetrate metal and how can someone differentiate zmax from motor oil once both products are mixed together?


Fail. You still have not produced the FTC endorsement letter nor FTC press conference approving zmax claims.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: rdalek
OK. Here is the warranty info. I didn't read it because I don't feel the need. It is a pdf file. I hope it works since I have never used this file hosting site before. I'm also not sure how long it will be there so may want to hurry.

http://www6.zippyshare.com/v/72250513/file.html


Fail. This is not an money back guarantee. This is an very limited warranty. So limited the consumer must prove that zmax caused engine failure.

Answer me this. How is the consumer going to prove this when the supporters can not answer how zmax can penetrate metal and how can someone differentiate zmax from motor oil once both products are mixed together?


Fail. You still have not produced the FTC endorsement letter nor FTC press conference approving zmax claims.


Money back is money back. You can call it any other name you want but if you get your money back, you get your money back. Here's a clue, anyone is going to want to know that their product caused the damage. Anyone would. Again, common sense. If you don't like it, they refund your money then too. It's really that simple.

You care to reply to this part below or is that to difficult just like my original question that you have yet to answer?

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Also, look at what I found that George told me about.

http://www.zmax.com/why/technical/

Quote:
zMAX spent $4.5 million testing our product to the FTC that zMAX works. The tests conducted on zMAX are based on accepted protocols as directed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). zMAX requires a "soak in" period in order to achieve maximum benefit, therefore, when necessary, the protocols have been modified only to include a "soak in" period for zMAX.


And look here as well:

http://www.zmax.com/why/benefits/

Quote:
The one product that soaks into metal, zMAX Micro-lubricant micro-molecules are reformulated to be smaller than regular oil molecules. This allows zMAX Micro-lubricant to more effectively reach internal parts to disperse carbon and other harmful deposits.


All that approved by the FTC lawsuit settlement. So, still want to answer my question or does this settle the discussion?


If all this is not good enough, here is a idea. Call zMAX yourself. I did. If I can spend my time trying to get FACTS for someone who just outright ignores those facts then you call them YOURSELF. Oh wait, then you will have to talk to someone that knows more about zMAX than you ever will. Here's the number. I wouldn't want you to break into a sweat or something trying to look it up. 1-888-645-1101 and ask for George. Really nice guy and you might actually learn something.

 

[Trajan]

http://www.militec1.com/mes14.html

Mr. Maurice LePera, head of Army fuel and lubes for the past 35 years, started this pattern of unethical behavior that continues to this day. There has been several IG investigations in to Le Pera's activities. We were recently informed that Le Pera is involved with the ZMAX engine additive Company. This company was recently fined over a million dollars by the FTC for fraudulent advertising. He has also been consulting for our Military.

LePera isn't someone to use for support of Zmax claims. Especially as they paid him.