Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 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.


Doesn't change the fact that zMAX was able to get their claims through that lawsuit tho does it? With the FTC happy to allow it at that.
 
Originally Posted By: rdalek
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?



Again for possible penetration.

Money back Guarantee. (noun) provide a formal assurance or promise, especially that certain conditions shall be fulfilled relating to a product, service, or transaction with money refunded.

Warranty a written statement that promises the good condition of a product and states that the maker is responsible for repairing or replacing the product usually for a certain period of time after its purchase.

You provided an example of a warranty not guarantee.

You contend the makers of zmax did not pay restitution on their settlement with the FTC because zmax has always offered an money back guarantee. Again calling an 800 number is not an money back guarantee. Money back guarantee is a certain(known for sure; established beyond doubt) refund(pay back (money), typically to a customer who is not satisfied with goods or services bought). The restitution(the restoration of something lost or stolen to its proper owner) agreed to by the settlement(is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after court action begins) the makers of zmax agreed to refund consumers whom purchased zmax for up to 1million United States Dollars.

Where is the money back guarantee?

Proving a product is responsible for failure is not that simple if you can not distinguish the product from motor oil once it mixed together.

Warranty does not equal money back guarantee. By definition is it that simple.

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Also, look at what I found that George told me about.
http://www.zmax.com/why/technical/
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.


Where is the documentation from the FTC to support this claim?

Originally Posted By: rdalek
And look here as well:

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

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?


Where is the documentation from the FTC to endorse this claim?

Originally Posted By: rdalek
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.


No you still have not provided the money back guarantee in writing so this is not good enough.

George is not authorized to provide a written money back guarantee.

Once again you have failed to provide something as simple as an money back guarantee and your fellow support is unable to provide an FTC endorsement letter or transcripts from an FTC press release to support the makers of zmax and zmax claims.

Good Luck on providing two simple documents.

Lets see if any supporter can answer the technical questions.
 
Wow, really? He's using zmax.com to say that the claims are true.........

As if Zmax.com, or any other product's website, would *ever* claim that they don't work......

Marketing departments just love people who accept anecdotes and testimonials on their face.
 
Originally Posted By: 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.


Dave5358, no problem reposting material that we have already seen before as we are now accustomed to it.

The last link you gave is what I pulled off of the Zmax webiste that I cited previously.

Here is an introduction to electron microscopy:

www.cae.tntech.edu/~jbiernacki/electronmicroscopy.ppt

http://www.mse.iastate.edu/research/labo...ron-microscope/

The first paper by Arch Analytical Services involves what is known as Auger Surface and Depth Profiling:

http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/surfaces/scc/scat7_5.htm


The report by Arch Analytical Services (AAS), as I have stated previously, is fraught with problems:

1. Vacuum

At 7X10^-10 torr vacuum, any surface films would have evaporated off the surface of the specimen. Notice the report did not list the vacuum values for these tests.

2. Page 3, Table.

The engine oil shows 27% Carbon content. The engine oil with Zmax shows 49% carbon content. The last entry shows (which is Zmax by itself) a carbon content of 63%.

If Zmax has a carbon content of 63% by itself, and the Exxon Superflow has a carbon content by itself of 27%, shouldn't the third entry in the table (Engine Oil with Zmax) show a carbon content of 63% + 27% = 90%?

3. This statement by AAS is still problematic:

Quote:


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 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%[/b].


Again, how can anyone make a statement that is not possible to quantify the numerical value of the so-called penetration depth, yet in the next sentence make statements that it has penetrated certain percentages? This doesn't compute.

Measuring the carbon content percentages (assuming they were really able to do that), does not equal penetration depth.

No student of mine nor faculty member would have been able to submit a paper like this and get it published.

4. Conclusion

Quote:
This ability to soak (i.e., be absorbed) into metal surfaces is the key to ZMax's effectiveness.


Well, so much for a disinterested third party's analysis.
shocked2.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: rdalek
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?



Again for possible penetration.

Money back Guarantee. (noun) provide a formal assurance or promise, especially that certain conditions shall be fulfilled relating to a product, service, or transaction with money refunded.

Warranty a written statement that promises the good condition of a product and states that the maker is responsible for repairing or replacing the product usually for a certain period of time after its purchase.

You provided an example of a warranty not guarantee.

You contend the makers of zmax did not pay restitution on their settlement with the FTC because zmax has always offered an money back guarantee. Again calling an 800 number is not an money back guarantee. Money back guarantee is a certain(known for sure; established beyond doubt) refund(pay back (money), typically to a customer who is not satisfied with goods or services bought). The restitution(the restoration of something lost or stolen to its proper owner) agreed to by the settlement(is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after court action begins) the makers of zmax agreed to refund consumers whom purchased zmax for up to 1million United States Dollars.

Where is the money back guarantee?

Proving a product is responsible for failure is not that simple if you can not distinguish the product from motor oil once it mixed together.

Warranty does not equal money back guarantee. By definition is it that simple.

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Also, look at what I found that George told me about.
http://www.zmax.com/why/technical/
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.


Where is the documentation from the FTC to support this claim?

Originally Posted By: rdalek
And look here as well:

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

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?


Where is the documentation from the FTC to endorse this claim?

Originally Posted By: rdalek
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.


No you still have not provided the money back guarantee in writing so this is not good enough.

George is not authorized to provide a written money back guarantee.

Once again you have failed to provide something as simple as an money back guarantee and your fellow support is unable to provide an FTC endorsement letter or transcripts from an FTC press release to support the makers of zmax and zmax claims.

Good Luck on providing two simple documents.

Lets see if any supporter can answer the technical questions.



Well, I have to add yet another question to the list then. What have you proven about zMAX? Have you had a test performed that proves zMAX doesn't work? I bet you have not and I bet you won't. I would also bet that if you did and the test results proved it works, you would still argue about something.

This is the really simple part of this. The FTC filed a lawsuit. When the FTC got to the discovery phase, saw the test results that showed what zMAX does, the FTC settled the lawsuit because it couldn't go any further. Zmax agreed because it could still sell its product and make the current claims that the FTC was fine with. If the FTC had a problem with the claims, they would have went forward with the case. I figure you won't get that because that is just common sense.

I'm planning to contact the FTC tomorrow. I'm going to ask them for some documents. If they show that they were satisfied with the claims being made, will that be enough or will you argue about something else?

Edit: How do you know that George can't provide that? He is the one that sent it to me. It has his name in the email.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Wow, really? He's using zmax.com to say that the claims are true.........

As if Zmax.com, or any other product's website, would *ever* claim that they don't work......

Marketing departments just love people who accept anecdotes and testimonials on their face.


More surprising is the fact the other supporter is attempting confirm zmax's claims with information provided by zmax.

A better strategy IMO would be is attempt to comprehend the possibility of the claim then research various sources and try to formulate my own hypothesis on how the claim could be true. I would not relay on the testimony of an person with an vested interest with the claim.
 
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Well, I have to add yet another question to the list then. What have you proven about zMAX? Have you had a test performed that proves zMAX doesn't work? I bet you have not and I bet you won't. I would also bet that if you did and the test results proved it works, you would still argue about something.


Debate does not work this way. I did not claim my product works with FTC approval. I just asked for proof the product works and the FTC approval.

Originally Posted By: rdalek
This is the really simple part of this. The FTC filed a lawsuit. When the FTC got to the discovery phase, saw the test results that showed what zMAX does, the FTC settled the lawsuit because it couldn't go any further. Zmax agreed because it could still sell its product and make the current claims that the FTC was fine with. If the FTC had a problem with the claims, they would have went forward with the case. I figure you won't get that because that is just common sense.


Common sense dictates one reads the lawsuit then ascertain what specific fraudulent marketing practices the accused were allegedly engaging in according to the lawsuit. If one is too lazy to read the lawsuit at the very least read posts that provided the specific fraudulent claims accused by the FTC. Common Sense.

Originally Posted By: rdalek
I'm planning to contact the FTC tomorrow. I'm going to ask them for some documents. If they show that they were satisfied with the claims being made, will that be enough or will you argue about something else?


I look forward to what the FTC provides to you. It will not be an letter of endorsement for zmax. Thus I will be satisfied if the claim that the FTC approves the use of zmax is dropped from supporters.

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Edit: How do you know that George can't provide that? He is the one that sent it to me. It has his name in the email.


Zmax only provides limited warranty. Not an written money back guarantee.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Wow, really? He's using zmax.com to say that the claims are true.........

As if Zmax.com, or any other product's website, would *ever* claim that they don't work......

Marketing departments just love people who accept anecdotes and testimonials on their face.


More surprising is the fact the other supporter is attempting confirm zmax's claims with information provided by zmax.

A better strategy IMO would be is attempt to comprehend the possibility of the claim then research various sources and try to formulate my own hypothesis on how the claim could be true. I would not relay on the testimony of an person with an vested interest with the claim.


It's not that surprising
smile.gif
That's all they understand.

Your strategy is certainly a good one. And that is what they *should* do. But so long as they think it works because the company says it does........

Perhaps if they actually read what Molakule is saying instead of dismissing it, and him? And what JHZR2, edhackett, kschachn are saying too.

And you're right on the money about warranties and money back guarantees. They don't understand any of it, so all they can do is argue the same thing over and over.

Their egos are really wrapped up in this. And the longer they go on, the more the ignorance shows through.

edit: Just read your above post. Very good.
 
Last edited:
I agree with your assessment.

Molakule, JHZR2, edhackett, kschachn are attempting to teach both not to be arrogant and show superior knowledge on the subject. The lessons became harsh due to some serious stubbornness and accusations of one does not understand his profession.

Also thank you for confirming my post.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I agree with your assessment.

Molakule, JHZR2, edhackett, kschachn are attempting to teach both not to be arrogant and show superior knowledge on the subject. The lessons became harsh due to some serious stubbornness and accusations of one does not understand his profession.


Exactly. And the supporters could learn from them. So could some of the others who "love anecdotal stories." over facts.
Originally Posted By: dave1251

Also thank you for confirming my post.


You're welcome:) When you're right, your right
smile.gif
 
Quote:
rdalek: Well, I have to add yet another question to the list then. What have you proven about zMAX? Have you had a test performed that proves zMAX doesn't work? I bet you have not and I bet you won't.


I performed some tests and they showed no efficacy whatsoever.

I was hoping it would show some efficacy because I do invest in small companies that have unique products with promising technologies.
 
Quote:
rdalek: Well, I have to add yet another question to the list then. What have you proven about zMAX? Have you had a test performed that proves zMAX doesn't work? I bet you have not and I bet you won't.



A better question is what have *you* proven about Zmax? Have *you* had a test performed that proves it does?

All you and the other one has done is regurgitate the company claims. And claims of what it does are *not* proof.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
2. Page 3, Table.

The engine oil shows 27% Carbon content. The engine oil with Zmax shows 49% carbon content. The last entry shows (which is Zmax by itself) a carbon content of 63%.

If Zmax has a carbon content of 63% by itself, and the Exxon Superflow has a carbon content by itself of 27%, shouldn't the third entry in the table (Engine Oil with Zmax) show a carbon content of 63% + 27% = 90%?


Let's examine this another way.

If pure Zmax (non diluted) has a carbon content of 63%, then 10% (the percentage added to the engine oil) is 6.3%. Since 0.3% is below 0.5%, we round this down to 6.0% to account for lack of instrumentation resolution.

The engine oil has a carbon content of 27% according to the referenced table.

Placing 10% of Zmax into the engine oil should yield a total carbon content of 27% + 6.0% = 33% carbon content.

However, the table says the engine oil plus Zmax has a carbon content of 49%.

The result is (49/33) = 1.4848... but rounded up to to 1.5, this means the reported value of carbon for engine oil plus Zmax is 1.5 times what it should be.

The table still does not make sense.
 
Last edited:
This time I am going to do this with pictures. Maybe folks can figure that out better. This is from the settlement of the lawsuit. I posted a link to that the other day I think. If needed, I can repost it. This is the relevant portions of the documents.

Zmax-18_zps211e452b.jpg


Zmax-19_zps31350d5f.jpg


That is where Zmax informed the court and the FTC what claims were going to be made and referenced the documents that prove the claims are correct. As in a lot of cases, the tests are confidential but that does not make them false.

This is part of the reply from the FTC.

Zmax-21_zps05713362.jpg


As you can see from that letter, the FTC reviewed the claims that ZMax was going to make, the test results that shows them to be within the law and then says that with those claims no action would be required. In other words, the claims are supported based on test results and the FTC is fine with those claims. Also note, a few of the claims are as listed below. Please pardon any typo as I am typing it in manually.

Quote:
zMAX soaks into the metal
zMAX reduces friction
zMAX increases horsepower
zMAX dissipates engine heat


Again, Zmax provided proof to the FTC and court that shows that to be correct. There are other claims that were also approved but the first one is the one that people still have the opinion is not true. Well, the FTC and the court says that it is and until someone can change that court order, it is just what the FTC and the court says it is.
 
So where are *your* tests that back up the company claims?. The best you can do is repeatedly spew the company line.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
So where are *your* tests that back up the company claims?. The best you can do is repeatedly spew the company line.


Zmax has already tested their product and provided that information to the FTC and the court. I'm not spewing the company line, I am posting COURT documents that shows the FTC agreed the claims are proven. Again, until you can prove that wrong, the decision of that court stands.

I have a idea that may help those who keep posting their opinion when the facts say otherwise. If you are so right, why not file a complaint with the FTC and get them to look into the matter again? Here is a link to get you started:

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

If you really believe what you are claiming, go file a complaint. However, until you can dispute that court order, you are posting nothing but a opinion without facts to back them up. The court and the FTC overrules your opinion.

You really think I'm going to spend money to prove what is already proven? Really? Here is a idea, since you think it is wrong, why don't you spend your money to prove it? After all, the FTC and the court says you are wrong, not me or dave5358. Maybe you can get it tested and then send that to the FTC with your complaint. Then again, you won't do that because your plan is to keep posting until you can bully someone into shutting up. Well, I plan to keep posting until either you prove the court and the FTC wrong or you accept the facts. Your choice.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
rdalek, where are the tests you've done to prove the claims?


Where are the test results you have done that shows it doesn't? You keep posting your OPINION. I am posting court documents that show ZMax proved it does what it claims. It is not for me to prove it doesn't, it is for you to prove the court and FTC wrong. Until then, you are posting nothing but a opinion with no facts or court documents to back it up.

Again, I will keep posting these facts until you either prove them wrong or accept it for what it is. I could care less if this thread goes to 100 pages. Facts are just that. Opinions without fact is nothing.

It is up to you or someone else here to prove the FTC and court wrong. Go get tests done yourself or go file a complaint with the FTC and tell them why you are right and they are wrong. Until then, the claims are still there and proven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
Bought a PC local. What is it really worth?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
Pew
edyvw
Turo Rental: 2022 Toyota Sienna Hybrid
4 5 6
Replies
114
Views
8K
ARB1977
A
  • Locked
Upgrading to a more efficient truck
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
surfstar
T
Is a hybrid right for my commute?
8 9 10
Replies
185
Views
12K
doublebase
Hermann
A pleasant trip to the Ozark's in the Venza
Replies
11
Views
2K
Cujet
Back
Top