Originally Posted By: rdalek
The only thing that could come out of it is if I take the time and effort to write a letter to the FTC and inquire about the process of the lawsuit that isn't in the court docs we see. Example, did the FTC and Zmax agree on a outside testing lab and with that comes the agreement to accept those findings regardless of the outcome? Also, did the FTC have someone inside the FTC advising them on this or did they hire someone to be a consultant like they do on other cases? I seriously doubt the FTC would file a lawsuit and not have some advice on the facts first. I'd like to know who if they would share that info.
I can save you some trouble on that score. There is an extensive record on the FTC vs Zmax lawsuit available through the PACER system for the US District Court, Middle District of North Carolina.
The FTC never used an outside lab - they accepted Oil-Chem/Zmax's results (essentially the affidavit of Maurice LePera). The FTC never agreed to an outside testing laboratory. In fact, the FTC and Zmax never even agreed on the standard of proof required. They just agreed to "settle" - and not much more. The FTC leaped into the Zmax case without looking.
As for what the FTC would do back then (or now), it's hard to say. They were still basking in victories over Slick-50 and Dura-Lube. Dura-Lube paid $2 million to the FTC. The FTC distributed this money to consumers. Dura-Lube filed bankruptcy. The name "Dura-Lube" was purchased by an Ohio company who markets a rather different product by the same name.
Slick-50 is made/marketed by Quaker State, as part of it's Blue Coral division. By the late 1990's, Quaker State controlled ~60% of the additive market. Slick-50 of this era was a PTFE-based additive. They settled with the FTC for ~$10 million, plus extensive changes in marketing methods, claims, etc. I don't know what ingredients are in today's Sllck-50.
The FTC clearly had technical advice on these matters - most likely Maurice LePera. FWIW, LePera had probably tested both products extensively in his role as Chief of the Fuels and Lubricants Division at the U.S. Army Belvoir Research, Development & Engineering Center, so he might have had the FTC's complete case against both products already sitting in his file cabinet. LePera may have had test results on Zmax or MMO in his files as well - particularly the latter product - since it has been used by the military. It should not have been difficult to make the case against any PTFE-based additive... just ask DuPont, inventor of Teflon. DuPont has repeatedly said not to use Teflon in your engine, and will not permit the use of the name Teflon (a DuPont trade mark) in connection with an oil additive.
If you wanted more information on either Dura-Lube or Slick-50 cases, you could do a careful net search. Or, you could find out in which federal court the Dura-Lube and Slick-50 matters were filed, then access the court's docket on the cases. There is probably a fair amount of material, including at least a detailed summary of the FTC's claims. Even if the material is off-line, you may be able to request it from archives.
Originally Posted By: rdalek
I would like to see the results from the person that says they are going to do some home testing. It may not be scientific or lab quality but most of our cars don't run in a lab either.
You are truly an optimist. The results from Dr Shalvoy / Arch Analytical were both scientific and lab quality. They were immediately dismissed as "never would have passed muster at the University level" according to our BITOG-published and BITOG-peer reviewed resident expert - simply because he disagreed with them. Of what conceivable value is a home test?
