Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
An 10 weight oil even a cheap 10 weight SA would soften sludge.

Doesn't prove anything.


Yes it does prove something. One, 10WT oil added the same amount will not do anything compares to Zmax. Two, no 10WT oil is approved by the FAA for piston aircraft. Three. Artic388 did not add any Zmax with this OCI, it was the previous two OCIs that soften the sludge.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
An 10 weight oil even a cheap 10 weight SA would soften sludge.

Doesn't prove anything.


Yes it does prove something. One, 10WT oil added the same amount will not do anything compares to Zmax. Two, no 10WT oil is approved by the FAA for piston aircraft. Three. Artic388 did not add any Zmax with this OCI, it was the previous two OCIs that soften the sludge.


All it proves is that it doesn't harm piston engines. Sure, you'll get people who swear by it. (And I know a few.) But it does not follow that lack of harm equals proof of benefit,

 

[azsynthetic]

I do have proof that ZMAX give me better mileage in "ALL" of my vehicles. I do run them in all of my vehicles, plus my relatives, plus my friends. I am an end user, not a seller nor owner of ZMAX. No harm, no foul, all benefits until proven otherwise.

 

[Garak]

Let's see the calculations.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
All it proves is that it doesn't harm piston engines. Sure, you'll get people who swear by it. (And I know a few.) But it does not follow that lack of harm equals proof of benefit...

Trajan keeps repeating this like a stuck record. Perhaps he can point to an FAA regulation that permits certification of meaningless products, because they "do no harm".

Z-Max/Avblend falls into an FAA category of consumable materials ("consists of those materials that become part of the aircraft, engine or propeller. Example of these include hydraulic fluids, lubricating oils, greases, sealants, adhesives, room temperature vulcanizing silicone compounds , paints, lock-wire, and high temperature tapes). These materials are all consumable items that become part of the aircraft, engine or propeller, and they were part of the type certificated product when the FAA approved the product."

FAA's standard for approval is that "the product will meet the expectations of the FAA and the flying public and that the materials will help to maintain the air worthiness of the complete aircraft."

Note also that the primary aircraft certificate holder (e.g. Cessna) would be required to approve the use of the specific product or approved substitute product in their certified airframe.

"Lack of harm" or whatever made-up standard Trajan created is not the same as "help to maintain the air worthiness of the complete aircraft".

 

[demarpaint]

Interesting ^^

 

[Oilport]

I'm Z-Maxed out.

 

[Arctic388]

Originally Posted By: Oilport
I'm Z-Maxed out.

the fun is just getting started. lol

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
An 10 weight oil even a cheap 10 weight SA would soften sludge.

Doesn't prove anything.


Yes it does prove something. One, 10WT oil added the same amount will not do anything compares to Zmax. Two, no 10WT oil is approved by the FAA for piston aircraft. Three. Artic388 did not add any Zmax with this OCI, it was the previous two OCIs that soften the sludge.


You missed the whole point.

The point is, ANY 10 weight SA mineral oil will thin out a sludgy oil. In fact any oil of about 4 cSt, as is Z-max, will thin out any oil and soften sludge.

Quote:
Two, no 10WT oil is approved by the FAA for piston aircraft.


I don't know that anyone said that any 10 weight SA mineral oil would meet FAA approval.

Making strawmen again?

Quote:
Three. Artic388 did not add any Zmax with this OCI, it was the previous two OCIs that soften the sludge.


And you know that how and what proof that Z-max did in fact do that?

Quote:
All it proves is that it doesn't harm piston engines. Sure, you'll get people who swear by it. (And I know a few.) But it does not follow that lack of harm equals proof of benefit,


Well stated.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
I do have proof that ZMAX give me better mileage in "ALL" of my vehicles. I do run them in all of my vehicles, plus my relatives, plus my friends. I am an end user, not a seller nor owner of ZMAX. No harm, no foul, all benefits until proven otherwise.


You started off with a low viscosity 5W30 (you say 5W20) and then you added a 4 cSt oil which thins the oil even further, and then you added something else....

I believe you said you used an older version of NEO which had a diester base with the weird additive lead naphthenate, which is no longer used today in PCMOs.

So what IS your exact mix at present and what is the 40C and 100C viscosity, and how do you know that Z-max, with all of the other extra stuff you added, contributed any benefit to your final mix?

 

[Arctic388]

i went from this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4O5jI7ky7E&list=PLPi_s5p45KGvZfDqHnY1lupx-HVUMkhqy&index=7

to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf27FQsh3Nc&list=PLPi_s5p45KGvZfDqHnY1lupx-HVUMkhqy&index=9

and the only difference was adding z-max to the oil.

of course that doesn't prove anything.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
All it proves is that it doesn't harm piston engines. Sure, you'll get people who swear by it. (And I know a few.) But it does not follow that lack of harm equals proof of benefit,

Well stated.

Neither well stated nor correct... just a Trajan retort. You, of all forum contributors, ought to know that.

FAA's standard is not 'lack of harm' - never has been. The primary aircraft certificate holder is responsible for specifying products that are used with or go into the aircraft (becomes part of the aircraft). FAA certifies these products which "help to maintain the air worthiness of the complete aircraft" as to consistency, manufacturing standards, and so on - about what you would expect of an engineering oriented agency.

Does anyone think an aircraft maker will approve or permit the use of a product in their airplane which does nothing or has no benefit? Or, that the FAA is busy certifying products that do nothing or have no benefit? Seriously? FAA standards and the certification process, application forms, etc. are readily available on line.

 

[edhackett]

Here's a document from the FAA regarding the approval process that includes third party additives. Note that nowhere is proof of efficacy required, only materials compatibility, physical compatibility, and wear related issues. Does no harm.

http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FAA/009024.pdf


Here's part 33 of the FARs referenced in the document:

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_33.html

This is from CamGuard's website, maker of one of the two accepted third party additives:
Quote:
There is no such thing as an FAA-approved oil additive.

ASL Camguard has been "accepted" by the FAA Engine & Propeller Directorate for normally aspirated engines. What that "acceptance" means is that the FAA wrote ASL a letter saying that they are persuaded that Camguard "does no harm" when used in normally aspirated engines.

ASL has requested such "acceptance" from the FAA Engine & Propeller Directorate for turbocharged engines, but the FAA has indicated that they will require ALT to submit the results of endurance tests that ASL anticipates will take them at least two years to complete. Thus, do not expect FAA type acceptance any time soon.

http://www.aslcamguard.com/testimonials/mike-busch-q-a

Ed

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule


And you know that how and what proof that Z-max did in fact do that?



Unless we want to call arctic a liar his videos provide a reasonable amount of evidence.

 

[dave5358]

Ed:

Your post refers to a 1985 advisory regarding procedures, and says little about standards. But, if you read it carefully, it says: "Fuels and lubricants found to perform satisfactorily during the type certification program of an engine are approved as part of the Type Certificate (TC) and are listed on the pertinent Tvpe Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS). Issuance of the TC constitutes approval of the fuel and lubricant specifications provided by the engine manufacturer."

and continues

"Fuels or lubricants that are not in conformance with the TC holder's approved specification listed on the TCDS, or a specification approved under a Supplemental Type
Certificate (STC) are not eligible for use in a certificated.engine. These non-conforming fuels or lubricants must satisfy the certification requirements outlined in Paragraph 5of this AC, PROCEDURE, in order to be approved."

There is a good description of a rather exhaustive testing process and a requirement that the product must comply with applicable regulations.

---

If you want something a bit more recent, look at Title 14 CFR 21 starting around sections 21.300, the standards for parts and parts supplier certifications are laid out.

If you want the simplified version, you can get a nice summary from MARPA..

From your description, it sounds like the FAA has simply not gotten around to testing the ASL Camguard product. Check back in 2 years.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: MolaKule


And you know that how and what proof that Z-max did in fact do that?



Unless we want to call arctic a liar his videos provide a reasonable amount of evidence.


My BIL is a third gen machinist. His father related stories to me of the old dirt trackers in Florida using the ZMax in the different labeled cans. Member Johnny told the same tale.

Apparently they had never seen their pistons so clean at the end of an engine's life...

 

[dave5358]

Ed:

There was a lot of stuff in your post to wade through, and the typing of the FAA memo was atrocious. That said, if you look at section 5.b., it gets to the meat of things: "A description of the test program and equipment that the applicant proposes to use in demonstrating the airworthiness of the material to be approved shall be submitted for approval."

My previous words on this, which you seem to be challenging, were in response to an expression oft-repeated by Trajan "All it [FAA approval] proves is that it doesn't harm piston engines... it does not follow that lack of harm equals proof of benefit"

"Doesn't harm piston engines" is not the same as "products which help to maintain air worthiness of the complete aircraft" (MARPA language, from the CFR)

Once again, do you think an aircraft maker would approve or permit the use of a product in their airplane which does nothing or has no benefit? Or, that the FAA is busy certifying products that do nothing or have no benefit? Or even that a product maker would apply for FAA approval for a product which did nothing or had no benefit? Seriously?

 

[MolaKule]

Where is this Type Certificate that Z-Max holds?

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: MolaKule


And you know that how and what proof that Z-max did in fact do that?



Unless we want to call arctic a liar his videos provide a reasonable amount of evidence.


I don't think he's a liar and I never used that term, you did.

I think Artic appears to be a nice guy that I would want to have a coffee and donut with, but his videos prove nothing.

 

[edhackett]

You are correct that that was an older document. It was superseded in 2011 by 20-24C, which curiously made no mention of additives. It was then superseded by 20-24D on 6/30/2014 with additives covered again. The wheels of bureaucracy have been spinning wildly.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC-20-24D.pdf

Quote:

(2) For additives not incorporated into an ASTM, SAE oil standard, or a brand name that meets an SAE standard, governmental or military specification, or other industry-based consensus organization specification:
(a) If the FAA determines that a demonstration of compliance for each certificated product for which the additive is intended to be used on is necessary, then the applicant must follow the process described in paragraph 7.f. of this AC to add the additive to each product's TCorSTC.
(b) In special cases, the FAA may determine that sufficient data is available to support a broad-based approval for use of the additive on unidentifiable population of engines o raircraft. For example, an additive with an identical composition to an existing, approved additive may have extensive service experience on a specific category,or type of aircraft or engine. Int his case, the FAA may conduct the evaluation and approval in accordance with § 21.8(d).
(c) For approvals conducted according to paragraphs (a) or (b) above, the showing of compliance must address the following:
1. It must be demonstrated that the additive does not have any adverse effects on the operation, performance, durability, or materials of the products intended for use.
2. I t must be demonstrated at the additive does not have any adverse effects on the performance of the base fuel or oil that it is intended for use with.
3. It must be demonstrated that the additive is compatible with an other additives, or combination of all other additives, permitted for use in the base fuel or oil that the additive is intended for use with.


The FAA does not test the fuels, oils, or additives. It is up to the manufacturer to submit the results of the required testing to the FAA. It is all on the manufactures dime. They only have to submit data to satisfy the FAA on points 1-3 above. Again, no proof of efficacy required.

CamGaurd does hold certification for use in non-turbocharged engines. The FAA is requiring CamGaurd to do the endurance testing on turbocharged engines. It is up to CamGaurd to do that testing and submit the data to the FAA to obtain certification for that type of engine.

Ed