Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

[Nebroch]

Originally Posted By: rdalek

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.


Obiviously mineral oil does all that when you compare it to running engine without any oil in it

 

[dave1251]

You have researched the position of zmax and how the company can legally the advertisement can make the claim it has spent millions of dollars of testing to submit to the FTC to advertise to satisfy marketing requirements not to be fraudulent.

Does this equal FTC endorses? No. So the claim the FTC endorses can be dropped.

It means zmax can sell its product with the amended claims.
These claims are
zMAX soaks into metal. No one has confirmed this yet.
zMAX reduces friction. I hope so I will explain keep reading.
zMAX increases horsepower. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX dissipates engine heat. I hope so I will explain keep reading.
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?

The MSDS of zmax
http://www.zmax.com/documents/msds_102_engine.pdf

Zmax is refined oil! Refined oil by itself will meet the advertising claims legally by zmax. Are you willing to drop 40 dollars on a quart of refined oil?

Notice the difference of the MSDS with a PCMO?

http://www.msds.exxonmobil.com/IntApps/psims/SearchResults.aspx

Then let move on it is important to study what the performance test zmax conducted and how each test correlates to your vehicle.

SAE J1321-This document describes a rigorous-engineering fuel-consumption test procedure that utilizes industry accepted data collection and statistical analysis methods to determine the change in fuel consumption for trucks and buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. I do not have an truck with a GVWR more than 5 tons. Test is not applicable to my situation.

Modified CRC L-38-This engine oil test method covers the evaluation of automotive engine oils (SAE grades 5W 10W, 20, 30, 40, and 50, and multiviscosity grades) intended for use in either spark-ignition gasoline engines, or in diesel engines. The test procedure is conducted using a carbureted, spark-ignition Cooperative Lubrication Research (CLR) Oil Test Engine (referred to as the L-38 engine in this test method). An oil is evaluated for protection against engine and oil deterioration under high-temperature, heavy-duty service conditions. The test method can also be used to evaluate the viscosity stability of multiviscosity-graded oils.. Again is zmax superior to water as a lubricant? Without knowing what the test base is I can legally state that Vaseline provides improved friction protection to nothing.

I can continue to shoot holes throughout the marketing claims of zmax.

An example of an PCMO marketing claim.
No leading conventional oil provides better wear protection.
Based on Sequence IVA wear test using SAE 5W-30.

Does this product claim to have a benefit? Yes. Does it provide the basis of the validity of the claimed benefit. Yes.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
You have researched the position of zmax and how the company can legally the advertisement can make the claim it has spent millions of dollars of testing to submit to the FTC to advertise to satisfy marketing requirements not to be fraudulent.

Does this equal FTC endorses? No. So the claim the FTC endorses can be dropped.

It means zmax can sell its product with the amended claims.
These claims are
zMAX soaks into metal. No one has confirmed this yet.
zMAX reduces friction. I hope so I will explain keep reading.
zMAX increases horsepower. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX dissipates engine heat. I hope so I will explain keep reading.
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?

The MSDS of zmax
http://www.zmax.com/documents/msds_102_engine.pdf

Zmax is refined oil! Refined oil by itself will meet the advertising claims legally by zmax. Are you willing to drop 40 dollars on a quart of refined oil?

Notice the difference of the MSDS with a PCMO?

http://www.msds.exxonmobil.com/IntApps/psims/SearchResults.aspx

Then let move on it is important to study what the performance test zmax conducted and how each test correlates to your vehicle.

SAE J1321-This document describes a rigorous-engineering fuel-consumption test procedure that utilizes industry accepted data collection and statistical analysis methods to determine the change in fuel consumption for trucks and buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. I do not have an truck with a GVWR more than 5 tons. Test is not applicable to my situation.

Modified CRC L-38-This engine oil test method covers the evaluation of automotive engine oils (SAE grades 5W 10W, 20, 30, 40, and 50, and multiviscosity grades) intended for use in either spark-ignition gasoline engines, or in diesel engines. The test procedure is conducted using a carbureted, spark-ignition Cooperative Lubrication Research (CLR) Oil Test Engine (referred to as the L-38 engine in this test method). An oil is evaluated for protection against engine and oil deterioration under high-temperature, heavy-duty service conditions. The test method can also be used to evaluate the viscosity stability of multiviscosity-graded oils.. Again is zmax superior to water as a lubricant? Without knowing what the test base is I can legally state that Vaseline provides improved friction protection to nothing.

I can continue to shoot holes throughout the marketing claims of zmax.

An example of an PCMO marketing claim.
No leading conventional oil provides better wear protection.
Based on Sequence IVA wear test using SAE 5W-30.

Does this product claim to have a benefit? Yes. Does it provide the basis of the validity of the claimed benefit. Yes.


And not one word of that changes the court order or the very fact that the FTC in the letter sent to ZMax said the claims were proven. You need to go back and read the info that the FTC sent back to ZMax. It says that the claims are fine based on the information provided. Nothing you say here will change that fact. Period.

Again, until you can show that the information provided to the court is wrong, you are stating a opinion. Your opinion does not change a thing and certainly doesn't change the court or the FTC documents. As I posted before, if you feel so strongly about this, go file another complaint. Let the FTC investigate it again and then post what happens here. Until then, you are stating nothing but a opinion that does not change that court order one bit.

 

[dennishiip]

Use Ceratec and move on

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
rdalek: This is part of the reply from the FTC.


Quote:
...The staff has concluded, on the assumption that such information is accurate and complete, that no compliance would be merited if the order is entered...


This is what I have been telling you supporters.

This is an admission by the FTC that they, the commission never verified any of the claims to be true.

They simply took these claims at face value because they had not sent these claims to outside entities for scientific peer review and scrutiny.

Please respond with a scientific answer to my posts regarding the Arch Analytical Services report.

 

[MolaKule]

The timeout got me again.

Quote:
rdalek: This is part of the reply from the FTC.


Quote:
...The staff has concluded, on the assumption that such information is accurate and complete, that no compliance would be merited if the order is entered...


This is what I have been telling you supporters.

This is an admission by the FTC that they, the commission, never verified any of the claims to be true.

They simply took these claims at face value because they had not sent these claims to outside entities for scientific peer review and scrutiny.

As much I respect the FAA, I contend that they, the FAA, had not sent these claims to outside entities for scientific peer review and scrutiny as well.

Please respond with a scientific answer to my posts regarding the Arch Analytical Services report.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
You have researched the position of zmax and how the company can legally the advertisement can make the claim it has spent millions of dollars of testing to submit to the FTC to advertise to satisfy marketing requirements not to be fraudulent.

Does this equal FTC endorses? No. So the claim the FTC endorses can be dropped.

It means zmax can sell its product with the amended claims.
These claims are
zMAX soaks into metal. No one has confirmed this yet.
zMAX reduces friction. I hope so I will explain keep reading.
zMAX increases horsepower. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX dissipates engine heat. I hope so I will explain keep reading.
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?

The MSDS of zmax
http://www.zmax.com/documents/msds_102_engine.pdf

Zmax is refined oil! Refined oil by itself will meet the advertising claims legally by zmax. Are you willing to drop 40 dollars on a quart of refined oil?

Notice the difference of the MSDS with a PCMO?

http://www.msds.exxonmobil.com/IntApps/psims/SearchResults.aspx

Then let move on it is important to study what the performance test zmax conducted and how each test correlates to your vehicle.

SAE J1321-This document describes a rigorous-engineering fuel-consumption test procedure that utilizes industry accepted data collection and statistical analysis methods to determine the change in fuel consumption for trucks and buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. I do not have an truck with a GVWR more than 5 tons. Test is not applicable to my situation.

Modified CRC L-38-This engine oil test method covers the evaluation of automotive engine oils (SAE grades 5W 10W, 20, 30, 40, and 50, and multiviscosity grades) intended for use in either spark-ignition gasoline engines, or in diesel engines. The test procedure is conducted using a carbureted, spark-ignition Cooperative Lubrication Research (CLR) Oil Test Engine (referred to as the L-38 engine in this test method). An oil is evaluated for protection against engine and oil deterioration under high-temperature, heavy-duty service conditions. The test method can also be used to evaluate the viscosity stability of multiviscosity-graded oils.. Again is zmax superior to water as a lubricant? Without knowing what the test base is I can legally state that Vaseline provides improved friction protection to nothing.

I can continue to shoot holes throughout the marketing claims of zmax.

An example of an PCMO marketing claim.
No leading conventional oil provides better wear protection.
Based on Sequence IVA wear test using SAE 5W-30.

Does this product claim to have a benefit? Yes. Does it provide the basis of the validity of the claimed benefit. Yes.


Nice post sir.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Nebroch
Originally Posted By: rdalek

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.


Obiviously mineral oil does all that when you compare it to running engine without any oil in it

And he *still* does not post any test he's done that support his company's claims.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Nebroch
Originally Posted By: rdalek

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.


Obiviously mineral oil does all that when you compare it to running engine without any oil in it

And he *still* does not post any test he's done that support his company's claims.


I do NOT own, work for, or have any interest, financial or otherwise, in Zmax or any other company associated with them. So, that is a outright lie. I see we have one person that resorts to name calling, who I have put on the ignore list, and now we have one who chooses to post a lie. This is the sort of thing people do when they can no longer argue with the facts that have been shown. If you continue down this path, you will be on the ignore list with the name caller as well. I'm not here to discuss this with people who resort to such tactics when they run out of facts. I have shown court documents to back up what I have posted. You have not shown anything that changes that.

So, let's recap again. A few people on this thread continue to post their opinion with no facts that can prove the court record or the FTC wrong. It seems no one wants to file a complaint with the FTC either so I guess they can't provide any real proof to them that will do any good. We are right back where we was many pages ago. Can someone provide proof that the current claims are not true? That is basically the same question I asked way back. So far, not one person can prove that wrong. Not one!!

 

[dave1251]

No. It was an futile attempt for you to learn this. Common sense is a product that is nothing but refined oil is not worth 40 dollars a quart and it does not benefit the operation of an internal combustion engine that has the correct OEM recommended oil in use. Where have I seen this before? Lack of harm does not mean proof of benefit.
Common Sense.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave1251
You have researched the position of zmax and how the company can legally the advertisement can make the claim it has spent millions of dollars of testing to submit to the FTC to advertise to satisfy marketing requirements not to be fraudulent.

Does this equal FTC endorses? No. So the claim the FTC endorses can be dropped.

It means zmax can sell its product with the amended claims.
These claims are
zMAX soaks into metal. No one has confirmed this yet.
zMAX reduces friction. I hope so I will explain keep reading.
zMAX increases horsepower. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX dissipates engine heat. I hope so I will explain keep reading.
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits. Compared to no lubricant?

The MSDS of zmax
http://www.zmax.com/documents/msds_102_engine.pdf

Zmax is refined oil! Refined oil by itself will meet the advertising claims legally by zmax. Are you willing to drop 40 dollars on a quart of refined oil?

Notice the difference of the MSDS with a PCMO?

http://www.msds.exxonmobil.com/IntApps/psims/SearchResults.aspx

Then let move on it is important to study what the performance test zmax conducted and how each test correlates to your vehicle.

SAE J1321-This document describes a rigorous-engineering fuel-consumption test procedure that utilizes industry accepted data collection and statistical analysis methods to determine the change in fuel consumption for trucks and buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. I do not have an truck with a GVWR more than 5 tons. Test is not applicable to my situation.

Modified CRC L-38-This engine oil test method covers the evaluation of automotive engine oils (SAE grades 5W 10W, 20, 30, 40, and 50, and multiviscosity grades) intended for use in either spark-ignition gasoline engines, or in diesel engines. The test procedure is conducted using a carbureted, spark-ignition Cooperative Lubrication Research (CLR) Oil Test Engine (referred to as the L-38 engine in this test method). An oil is evaluated for protection against engine and oil deterioration under high-temperature, heavy-duty service conditions. The test method can also be used to evaluate the viscosity stability of multiviscosity-graded oils.. Again is zmax superior to water as a lubricant? Without knowing what the test base is I can legally state that Vaseline provides improved friction protection to nothing.

I can continue to shoot holes throughout the marketing claims of zmax.

An example of an PCMO marketing claim.
No leading conventional oil provides better wear protection.
Based on Sequence IVA wear test using SAE 5W-30.

Does this product claim to have a benefit? Yes. Does it provide the basis of the validity of the claimed benefit. Yes.


Nice post sir.


Thank you I appreciate this.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
No. It was an futile attempt for you to learn this. Common sense is a product that is nothing but refined oil is not worth 40 dollars a quart and it does not benefit the operation of an internal combustion engine that has the correct OEM recommended oil in use. Where have I seen this before? Lack of harm does not mean proof of benefit.
Common Sense.


Again, that is your OPINION. It is not a fact. It still does not answer that question or dispute the court or the FTC. Common sense is supported by what I have said all along. The court record shows that the FTC knows what Zmax is claiming and to this day has not challenged them. Common sense says the FTC is in the same boat as you, can't prove it doesn't do what it says it does.

Try again tho. I'll keep posting until you either start posting something that proves the court and the FTC wrong or you accept the facts. Which is it? I plan to be around the rest of the day and will be back online later tonight as well.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
No. It was an futile attempt for you to learn this. Common sense is a product that is nothing but refined oil is not worth 40 dollars a quart and it does not benefit the operation of an internal combustion engine that has the correct OEM recommended oil in use. Where have I seen this before? Lack of harm does not mean proof of benefit.
Common Sense.


Again, that is your OPINION. It is not a fact. It still does not answer that question or dispute the court or the FTC. Common sense is supported by what I have said all along. The court record shows that the FTC knows what Zmax is claiming and to this day has not challenged them. Common sense says the FTC is in the same boat as you, can't prove it doesn't do what it says it does.

Try again tho. I'll keep posting until you either start posting something that proves the court and the FTC wrong or you accept the facts. Which is it? I plan to be around the rest of the day and will be back online later tonight as well.


Common sense would say that if you call for someone to do tests that it does not work, then you should take set the example and do tests that it does.

Something you fail at over and over.

Any one with common sense would realize that no company that promotes its product will ever admit that it can't do what they claim.

Your product does *not* "soak" into metal. It certainly does not *diffuse* into metal. The rest doesn't do anything that fully formulated motor oil does.

Why spend $39.99 for this product when you can get 5 quarts of real motor oil and Gumout Regane for less money?.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
No. It was an futile attempt for you to learn this. Common sense is a product that is nothing but refined oil is not worth 40 dollars a quart and it does not benefit the operation of an internal combustion engine that has the correct OEM recommended oil in use. Where have I seen this before? Lack of harm does not mean proof of benefit.
Common Sense.


Again, that is your OPINION. It is not a fact. It still does not answer that question or dispute the court or the FTC. Common sense is supported by what I have said all along. The court record shows that the FTC knows what Zmax is claiming and to this day has not challenged them. Common sense says the FTC is in the same boat as you, can't prove it doesn't do what it says it does.

Try again tho. I'll keep posting until you either start posting something that proves the court and the FTC wrong or you accept the facts. Which is it? I plan to be around the rest of the day and will be back online later tonight as well.


Common sense would say that if you call for someone to do tests that it does not work, then you should take set the example and do tests that it does.

Something you fail at over and over.

Any one with common sense would realize that no company that promotes its product will ever admit that it can't do what they claim.

Your product does *not* "soak" into metal. It certainly does not *diffuse* into metal. The rest doesn't do anything that fully formulated motor oil does.

Why spend $39.99 for this product when you can get 5 quarts of real motor oil and Gumout Regane for less money?.


Again, none of that changes the facts. The court and the FTC has seen sufficient evidence that proves Zmax can make the claims it does.

It is not for me to prove a thing. I already have a source of information that shows it has been proven. That would be the court documents that shows that evidence was provided to support the Zmax claims. So, don't say it is up to me to prove a thing. You and a couple others are the ones that have to prove something. I have already proven my point. Zmax, with the full knowledge of the court and the FTC, is to this day making those claims. If they were not true, the FTC or the court would have taken action already. It has been over a decade since all this happened so they have had plenty of time to do something.

Again, if you feel so strongly that ZMax doesn't do what it claims, file a complaint with the FTC. I don't think they charge a fee or anything to file one. The only reason no one is doing that is because you will have to prove what you claim. You can't just give a opinion to the FTC. Once again, here is the link for you.

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/#crnt&panel1-1

If you file a complaint and get a response, post it here so we can all see it.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
rdalek: ...This is the sort of thing people do when they can no longer argue with the facts that have been shown. If you continue down this path, you will be on the ignore list with the name caller as well...


We know why you placed certain people on your ignore list and it's because you have not been able to respond with any scientific facts to support yours or Dave5358's statements, Dale.

Therefore, I can only ascertain that neither you nor he understand the technological aspects of this case.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
rdalek: ...This is the sort of thing people do when they can no longer argue with the facts that have been shown. If you continue down this path, you will be on the ignore list with the name caller as well...


We know why you placed certain people on your ignore list and it's because you have not been able to respond with any scientific facts to support yours or Dave5358's statements, Dale.

Therefore, I can only ascertain that neither you nor he understand any technological aspects in this case.


Or the legal aspects both Dave1251 and I have presented. (more Dave that me lately.)

No matter how many times he pushes the same line, that doesn't make his claims any more accurate,

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
rdalek: ...This is the sort of thing people do when they can no longer argue with the facts that have been shown. If you continue down this path, you will be on the ignore list with the name caller as well...


We know why you placed certain people on your ignore list and it's because you have not been able to respond with any scientific facts to support yours or Dave5358's statements, Dale.

Therefore, I can only ascertain that neither you nor he understand any technological aspects in this case.


Or the legal aspects both Dave1251 and I have presented. (more Dave that me lately.)


I could see the blocked member in the quote. The reason I put you on the block list is for the reasons I said back when I posted I was going to do it. 1) you resort to name calling which I will not tolerate especially when done in a way that is clearly not humor. 2) You, like others, still have not posted a single thing that will change that court order. The first one is the biggest reason. If you want to do that, talk to yourself. If at some point you can be more respectful and someone is willing to state that you have shown you can be respectful, then that could change. Other than that, I have no reason to see a thing you post.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Again, none of that changes the facts. The court and the FTC has seen sufficient evidence that proves Zmax can make the claims it does.

This is where the it get interesting for the supporters. The FTC made that determination. The FTC can not issue an injunction unless there is definitive proof the product can not meet advertised claims. If zmax can meet the claim during one test then it can be claimed. Also there is no criteria and baseline for the claims. Notice zmax does not say it improves motor oil. It does not claim it outperforms motor oil. It does not claim you can use it in place of motor oil as in substitute 5 quarts of motor oil for 5 quarts of zmax. Zmax can not make claims like this because it is just refined oil.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
rdalek: ...This is the sort of thing people do when they can no longer argue with the facts that have been shown. If you continue down this path, you will be on the ignore list with the name caller as well...


We know why you placed certain people on your ignore list and it's because you have not been able to respond with any scientific facts to support yours or Dave5358's statements, Dale.

Therefore, I can only ascertain that neither you nor he understand the technological aspects of this case.


I agree.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
No matter how many times he pushes the same line, that doesn't make his claims any more accurate,


This is quoted for truth. Now watch what happens next.