Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Note that the Avblend folks, who make all of these same claims, were able to convince the FAA.

Note also that the Z-max folks, when challenged by the FTC. were permitted to continue making this same claim (soaks into metal).


Since you and others were the one's that appeared to be supporting these claims made by Oil-Chem, I thought maybe you had some new information on the molecular kinetics and thermodynamics of the how, but I see that your using the same old argument that if some non-technical government agency fell for inuendos and pseudo-scientific claims, then you have no new background information that would support these claims, or shed light on the efficacy of this material.

Beep, beep, beep. The FAA is hardly a non-technical government agency - particularly the sections that deal with certification. Furthermore, as you well know (you even gave an example of this) they frequently require the applicant to submit engineering support and test data for whatever claims are being made - the FAA just reviews the engineering data submitted. The FAA (and and government engineers, in general) frequently review product documentation to make sure test results and engineering data support the documentation. It's a pretty basic process.

I genuinely doubt they "fell for inuendos and psuedo-scientific claims." During my time with LTV Aerospace, we occasionally worked with the FAA on safety issues and their engineers seemed on top of things - a whole lot better than some other Federal agencies I have dealt with.

If you are genuinely interested in what the Avblend folks (Oil-Chem?) said to the FAA, why not make a freedom of information act request for their application materials. It should be public. You keep suggesting the Avblend/Z-max claims can't be so because you can't understand it. Well, the key to understanding is now at your finger tips. Better that than bad-mouthing the FAA. Whether you like it or agree with it, the Avblend/Z-Max folks have jumped through a couple of very tricky hoops. Give them credit for that, whether you like their product or not.

Originally Posted By: badtlc
I'm not sure why you are being so confrontational in this thread...

Did someone hack your password on BITOG?

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
To answer your question. Since the manufacture has to fund the entire process for certification it is a calculated risk. If the certification allows the manufacture to sell more product then the certificate is worth the investment. To answer why more companies do not seek FAA certification would the process benefit sales and revenue. The answer is for each individual business to decide.

All so true. Some companies' products are uniquely aviation oriented, so they may not have a choice - certification is a way of life in the aircraft industry.

Any certification process is expensive: in time, administrative effort, outside consultants, etc. It's hard to imagine a company undertaking this casually or without a very clear objective of success.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
To answer your question. Since the manufacture has to fund the entire process for certification it is a calculated risk. If the certification allows the manufacture to sell more product then the certificate is worth the investment.

To answer why more companies do not seek FAA certification would the process benefit sales and revenue. The answer is for each individual business to decide.


But then the product would have to meet some set of criteria wouldn't it? A product that is useless but does no harm would still get FFA certification?

If someone took a wiz in a gallon of fuel and added to a Cessna fuel tank and nothing happened in theory it could meet FAA approval? If someone was trying for an FAA approval on Wiz Ad Fuel Stabilizer for the sake of argument. I'm trying to understand, not make it difficult for you.

What I'm getting at is FAA approvals could be absolutely worthless. Making the FAA a complete hack.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
I have to question your ability to comprehend. Trying something does not equal "liking" something. Guess you missed the part where I said it did not do what it claimed.


Originally Posted By: Trajan
BTW, I've used it. I spent a lot of money on it. It didn't kill the Z4's M54B30

Okay, I think I've got it. You did buy it. You did use it. You did spend a lot of money on it. It didn't kill something or other. But you didn't like it.

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Again, lack of harm does not provide proof of benefit. The FAA has no interest in any perceived benefit.

According to you, the FAA spends their days evaluating purposeless products which provide no benefit, against a standard of "no harm". That's not what their written Advisory says. That's not what the CFR says. That's not how the MARPA folks who are working in the industry describe it. But you could be right.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
If you are genuinely interested in what the Avblend folks (Oil-Chem?) said to the FAA, why not make a freedom of information act request for their application materials. It should be public. You keep suggesting the Avblend/Z-max claims can't be so because you can't understand it. Well, the key to understanding is now at your finger tips. Better that than bad-mouthing the FAA. Whether you like it or agree with it, the Avblend/Z-Max folks have jumped through a couple of very tricky hoops. Give them credit for that, whether you like their product or not.


So I will take that as a, "No I can't prove any of those claims either."

Since you are such a supporter I thought you had the info at your fingertips.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: badtlc


Let us use some logic, reasoning and adult minds to discuss what this could be instead of throwing "prove it" and other non productive accusatory phrases.


How about we use the scientific method to falsify or verify claims instead of emotions:

http://chemistry-sets-review.toptenreviews.com/chemistry-sets-teaching-the-scientific-method.html


The option of controlled, scientific experiments in this environment is not realistic nor worthwhile. Why can't we just discuss what happened in Arctic's videos? Something is going on there and I'd like to discuss what that is.


Then I recommend you start a new thread and well discuss it there.

Then we can discuss cause-and-effect, pre-dconditions of the engine before the opening of the filters, and then try to draw some conclusions.

I saw three videos by a Mr. Brown. The first two were no comments and the last one had some comments.

This thread is so cluttered and old it's getting mildew.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
So I will take that as a, "No I can't prove any of those claims either."
Since you are such a supporter I thought you had the info at your fingertips.

As previously said, I've never used it and have no plans to do so in the immediate future. Trajan's the Z-Max supporter on BITOG.

At least you know where you might find the answer to these questions which seems to be troubling you.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
But then the product would have to meet some set of criteria wouldn't it? A product that is useless but does no harm would still get FFA certification?


If the company is willing to pay for the entire testing and certification process and proves that the product will not cause aircraft to go down then the company will receive the certification. Thus AvBlend is suitable and receives an FAA certification.

I look at the FAA certification process as an attempt to ensure standards are met while fostering innovation. Then of course people will take advantage of the potential to state "FAA APPROVED" To answer your question if you have the time and money to wiz into aviation gasoline then submit your data and findings into the FAA certification process you may have a shot. I would like to record the decision on your product submission and to see the reaction of the people involved once the realization is made of what comprises the product you are attempting to certify.

Example of "FAA APPROVED"

http://www.jetwithkids.com/blog/faa-approved-car-seats-that-dont-fit

The most interesting tidbit is I can not find AvBlend's type certificate number and registration.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
You keep suggesting the Avblend/Z-max claims can't be so because you can't understand it.


As a Physicist with a minor in Physical Chemisty, and an advanced degree in Aerospace Engineering, I think I understand the issue very well, thank you.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
So I will take that as a, "No I can't prove any of those claims either."
Since you are such a supporter I thought you had the info at your fingertips.

As previously said, I've never used it and have no plans to do so in the immediate future. Trajan's the Z-Max supporter on BITOG.

At least you know where you might find the answer to these questions which seems to be troubling you.


Translation: You lay smokescreens to cover up that you support claims that you can't possibly prove.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave5358
As previously said, I've never used it and have no plans to do so in the immediate future. Trajan's the Z-Max supporter on BITOG.

At least you know where you might find the answer to these questions which seems to be troubling you.

Translation: You lay smokescreens to cover up that you support claims that you can't possibly prove.

Better Translation: As previously said, I've never used it and have no plans to do so in the immediate future. Trajan's the Z-Max supporter on BITOG.

At least you know where you might find the answer to these questions which seems to be troubling you.

 

[Trajan]

It's safe to say that as even it's biggest supporter in this thread can't explain the chemistry/physics/tribology to show how those claims can be accurate, the following...

It isn't worth the money. Unless it helps you sleep at night. But there are cheaper, less risky ways.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
It's safe to say that as even it's biggest supporter in this thread can't explain the chemistry/physics/tribology to show how those claims can be accurate, the following... It isn't worth the money. Unless it helps you sleep at night. But there are cheaper, less risky ways.

It is a fact that the Z-Max/AvBlend folks convinced the FAA that their product contributed to the air-worthiness of the overall aircraft.

---

It is a fact that, when challenged by the FTC, the Z-Max folks were permitted to continue making the following specific claims about their product:

zMAX soaks into metal.
zMAX reduces friction.
zMAX increases horsepower.
zMAX dissipates engine heat.
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

Pretty clearly, the FTC 'bit off a bit more than they could chew' on that case.

---

It's a fact that Joe Lencki, the inventor of Lenckite, zMax, Avblend was able to convince the US Patent Office to issue him a patent in 1947 for his invention.

Lencki managed the Dodge aircraft plant in Chicago which built B-29 airplanes during WWII. Lencki was an avid racer, with several Indianapolis vehicle entries. He was also a close associate of Tony Bettenhausen and Harry Miller.

---

It is a fact [as reported by a Cadillac technician] that Cadillac has recommended to dealer technicians that Z-MAX is a viable additive to aid in the correction of cold, and hot engine knock due to carbon deposits, and to reduce oil consumption.

The Northstar engine, in later years, plagued by various concerns, one of which is oil consumption, may now have an easy way out. GM is promoting a "Mechanics formula" of Z-MAX to be used on vehicles out of warranty. You did not really think that GM was going to pay warranty claims on a product that they could not profit on did you? Anyway, the kit comes with 2-32 ounce bottles. The program is this....change the oil and filter, add 16 ounces to the oil, and 16 ounces to the fuel tank, provided it is over half full. In 1,000 miles, change the oil again, add 16 ounces to the oil, 16 ounces to the fuel. 1,000 miles later, change the oil again, and the noise and oil consumption should be a memory now.

---

It is a fact that when one technical user of this forum was challenged to simply obtain the FAA approval, application materials, test results submitted, etc. - public documents that he should be able to understand, but which might be less interesting to laymen - he not only declined but reacted with a rather bizarre rant that a "non-technical government agency fell for innuendos and pseudo-scientific claims". I wonder how he knows that FAA approval was decided based on "innuendos and pseudo-scientific claims"? I mean, without seeing the documentation they submitted?

Talk about "better to curse the darkness than light a candle".

I know, from first-hand, personal experience at LTV Aerospace that the FAA is a first-class technical agency (particularly good for a US Government agency) which maintains extensive product testing files, failure prediction and prevention information, and data to examine and explain aircraft crashes. It's really poor form to trash some agency, simply because you don't like them or a product or whatever.

Remember the claim that a "non-technical government agency fell for innuendos and pseudo-scientific claims" - should be comforting the next time you fly in a plane.

As for me, I've never used ZMax but it seems like an interesting product.

Since Trajan has bought zMax, used it, spent a lot of money on it, he's welcome to be a supporter or not. If he does not now think it was worth a lot of money, perhaps he can explain why not? Or, how did it fail to perform and how did he determine that it failed to perform? It's safe to say that might be useful information, rather than simply drawling on and on about "it's safe to say... "

 

[SteveSRT8]

Man, what a gem: "Talk about "better to curse the darkness than light a candle"."

I love it. This happens a lot around here...

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Man, what a gem: "Talk about "better to curse the darkness than light a candle"."

I love it. This happens a lot around here...

It happens because some users just love to say "it's safe to say... " or some other goofy equivalent. For crying out loud - if Trajan actually has something to say, why not just say it.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
It is a fact that the Z-Max/AvBlend folks convinced the FAA that their product contributed to the air-worthiness of the overall aircraft.


No.

FAA inspectors performed two consecutive engine disassembly inspections. Both inspections (1,000 hours and 1,100 respectively) produced impressive results.

Less than .001 of an inch total wear between the critical exhaust valve stem-guide location was observed at both teardown inspection periods.

As a testament to its effectiveness, the company shows off a set of Lycoming HIO-360 cylinders run on an Enstrom helicopter; this ship was operated by WGN radio in Chicago as a traffic-watch helo. Upon first inspection, the cylinders and valves look quite clean, with normal wear patterns and no evidence of heat damage. The kicker is that they have some 7,700 hours in four overhaul cycles on them. (Indeed, it was a body of operator experience along with 1,000 hours of close scrutiny of this engine installation upon which the FAA based its approval. Note that FAA approval doesn't mean the product will do what it claims to do, or that the agency somehow recommends it. Rather, it simply means that the FAA has witnessed that the product will do no harm to an aircraft engine.)
Exhaust and intake valves, guides, and seats showed minimal, if any, carbon and deposit buildup. Pistons, rings, ring lands, and combustion chambers also showed minimal carbon/deposit buildup and were in excellent condition.

All four cylinders still contained the original nitride-steel barrels and were used for five complete overhaul cycles, with no chroming or over sizing processes during engine service time.


To see just what AvBlend might do, we had a Mooney operator begin using the product a few months ago. With about 35 hours on AvBlend, he reported no noticeable changes and nothing abnormal in the oil analysis. He will, however, continue to use AvBlend, and report back to us should he notice any improvement or problems with his TSIO-360 Continental. Though a one-airplane, one-pilot sampling represents statistically shaky ground (which, quite honestly, applies to the Microlon test earlier), we hope to get some sense of the product's worth over time. To the Rachanskis' credit, they never claim improved power or TBO-busting longevity with the use of AvBlend. Instead, they call it a product that treats a specific set of problems common to many air-cooled aviation engines; it's a focused fix rather than an all-over, feel-good engine panacea.

The whole FAA certificate hoopla is only applicable to air cooled aircraft engines not common automobile engines.

Read the entire FTC suit versus the makers of zmax.

"The Federal Trade Commission has filed suit in U. S. District Court seeking to halt false and misleading advertising for zMax auto additives and has asked the court to order refunds to consumers who bought the products. The agency alleges that enhanced performance claims for the product are unsubstantiated, that tests cited to support performance claims actually demonstrated that motor oil treated with zMax produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion than motor oil alone, and that the three different products - an engine additive, a fuel line additive and a transmission additive - were all actually tinted mineral oil. zMax is manufactured by Oil-Chem, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. Speedway, based in Concord, North Carolina, operates NASCAR race tracks in the South and in California, in addition to marketing the zMax products.

According to the FTC complaint, since at least May 1999, zMax ran infomercials touting its "Power System," a $39 package of three additives to be used in the engine, fuel line and transmission of automobiles. The infomercials feature testimonials from consumers and race car drivers making claims such as, "I was averaging about 22 miles to the gallon on the highway. I installed the zMax and so I jumped right up to about 28 miles per gallon;" and "zMax guarantees a minimum of 10 percent gas mileage increase." Other marketing and promotional pieces claim, "zMax with LinKite has the scientific, CRC L38 proof it takes your car to the MAX!" and "Why zMAX Works - Cuts carbon build-up on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on piston skirts 60%; Reduces blow-by leakage 17.7%; Increases combustion efficiency 9.25%; Lowers fuel consumption 8.5% - Results of an independent CRC L38 test."

According to the FTC, the CRC L38 test is a standard auto industry tool to measure the bearing corrosion protection properties of motor oils. In February/March 1997, an independent laboratory performed two CRC L38 tests of zMax for Speedway and Oil Chem. In those tests, motor oil treated with zMax produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion as motor oil alone. The complaint also states that the defendants fabricated one "report" from the two test reports, eliminating the bearing corrosion results and all other negative test results, and then used that report and the "official laboratory results" - similarly edited to remove detrimental data results - as sales tools in the infomercial and on the zMax Web site.

The FTC's complaint alleges that the defendants did not possess and rely on reasonable substantiation for the following claims in the infomercial, on the Web site and in brochures that zMax:

increases gas mileage;
increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10%
reduces engine wear;
reduces or eliminates engine wear at startup;
reduces engine corrosion;
extends engine life; and
reduces emissions.

The agency's complaint also alleges that the defendants falsely represent that the results of the CRC L38 test proved that zMax:

increases gas mileage;
reduces engine wear;
extends engine life;
lowers fuel consumption by 8.5%
lowers wear on valve stems by 66%
lowers wear on piston skirts by 60%; and
cuts carbon build-up on valve stems by 66%.

Finally, the FTC charges that in consumer testimonials and endorsements in their advertising, the defendants did not have substantiation for the representation that the endorsers' experiences were, "The actual and current opinions, findings, beliefs, and/or experiences of those consumers; and the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use the product."

The actual performance claims the makers of zmax made are no longer made. Instead just generic claims are made notice there is no improvement claims versus a test baseline. zmax could not substantiate its claims thus now only generic claims are made. Just like PCMO's.

 

[Trajan]

This is worth repeating.

So, dave5358 et al. Just where does it say that it has to have a benefit to gain FAA approval?

Originally Posted By: edhackett


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


The product has *not* been proved to contribute to air worthiness. Claiming that it does repeatedly will not change that.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
The FTC's complaint...

Why would you recite the FTC complaint for a matter that has already been settled? It's over... done... finished.

""We at Speedway Motorsports are very pleased that the staff of the Federal Trade Commission has specifically confirmed that Oil-Chem can continue to make the following claims in its advertising and promotion of zMAX," stated Marylaurel E. Wilks, vice president and general counsel of SMI.

zMAX soaks into metal.

zMAX reduces friction.

zMAX increases horsepower.

zMAX dissipates engine heat.

zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits."

---

Are you deliberately trying to mislead?

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
This is worth repeating.

Another Trajan-ism?

Originally Posted By: Trajan
So, dave5358 et al. Just where does it say that it has to have a benefit to gain FAA approval? Then, quoting Ed Hacket...

The Ed Hackett document you cherry picked starts out...

"Applicability

b. This material is neither mandatory nor regulatory in nature and does not constitute a
regulation. "

But if you had looked at Ed's other citation, you would have found:

5.b. "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."

You can find similar language from MARPA: "products which help to maintain air worthiness of the complete aircraft" (MARPA, taken from the CFR)

Once again, do you think an aircraft maker would approve or even 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 do you think a product maker would apply for FAA approval for a product which did nothing or had no benefit?

Seriously?

Originally Posted By: Trajan
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."
The product has *not* been proved to contribute to air worthiness. Claiming that it does repeatedly will not change that.

I don't recall saying anything about CamGuard. The FAA seems to be waiting for the CamGuard folks to do some more testing. Check back in two years. And, please stay on topic. Start a new thread if you are interested in CamGuard.

Combine your -ism's: This is worth repeating: it is safe to say that lack of harm does not equal proof of benefit.

 

[dave1251]

Correct the FTC complaint was settled the makers of zmax spent 4.5 million dollars and could not prove the claims of zmax did much of anything. Thus zmax can only make generic claims. Zmax can not make claims with any substance such as
increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10%
lowers fuel consumption by 8.5%
lowers wear on valve stems by 66%
lowers wear on piston skirts by 60%; and
cuts carbon build-up on valve stems by 66%.
also the makers of zmax were ordered to pay restitution of one million dollars to parties that purchased zmax prior to the March 20, 2003 ruling.
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2003/03/030321stip0023256.pdf

The only "victory" the manufacturer of zmax was able to obtain is zmax can still be sold and make the lame generic claims you have listed.