Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Here's a quote from their site: "LUBEGARD is the ONLY product of its kind Used, Endorsed, Designated & Approved by multiple Car Manufacturers/OEM’s!"
Why not sue them for false advertising?
You said it yourself it is recommended for ZF transmissions for noise reduction, why? Facts not your opinion would be helpful. You yourself recommend certain "snake oils", what's your stance on this one? Transmission re-builders use it all the time, in fact a local shop by me even sells it.
You have to think like a lawyer as that statement can apply to a past approval that is no longer valid, ensorsed could mean they mentioned its use in a company e mail, designated just means it was listed for some reason and the big question is over approved, because if they don't provide a specific current document number for a particular manufacturer, how can you figure out what it was approved for? Without seeing copies of the real manufacturers approval such marketing statements are meaningless.
There is a big difference between using products during maintenance and selling them as additives for Joe public to pour in his engine or transmission, often for no good reason and in specific violation of sound advice from the manufacturer.
I think you will find that the limited number of approvals for additives are for noise reduction, stopping leaks, cleaning out contaminants with a very occasional terminal phase thickner to slightly extend the life of a box before final failure. BUT 99% of the additives sold are not used in connection with any kind of approvals and because they often interfere with add packs and fluid viscosity, do more harm than good. If the snake oil companies that had approvals or official recommendations published them on their web site, then the public could figure out what their products could do and what they could not, but that would be bad for business as not many transmission faults can be helped with an additive.
Snake oil additive companies are in regular trouble for false advertising, but their sites tend to avoid specific claims and stick to generalities to avoid trouble, even LM has taken some stick over their claims about how long a product lasts as the oil analysis companies didn't find Ceretec lasted any longer than the first oil change for example.
The important point with advertising is not to believe it until you have read the corresponding document or data from an independent source, for example I mentioned the ZF approval because I have read the actual ZF document, not because I read it on the LG site, so if you can find any current approvals please provide a link so we can see what they are for, because some small manufacturers will aprove anything if they get a mention on the other companies web site.
Here's a quote from their site: "LUBEGARD is the ONLY product of its kind Used, Endorsed, Designated & Approved by multiple Car Manufacturers/OEM’s!"
Why not sue them for false advertising?
You said it yourself it is recommended for ZF transmissions for noise reduction, why? Facts not your opinion would be helpful. You yourself recommend certain "snake oils", what's your stance on this one? Transmission re-builders use it all the time, in fact a local shop by me even sells it.
You have to think like a lawyer as that statement can apply to a past approval that is no longer valid, ensorsed could mean they mentioned its use in a company e mail, designated just means it was listed for some reason and the big question is over approved, because if they don't provide a specific current document number for a particular manufacturer, how can you figure out what it was approved for? Without seeing copies of the real manufacturers approval such marketing statements are meaningless.
There is a big difference between using products during maintenance and selling them as additives for Joe public to pour in his engine or transmission, often for no good reason and in specific violation of sound advice from the manufacturer.
I think you will find that the limited number of approvals for additives are for noise reduction, stopping leaks, cleaning out contaminants with a very occasional terminal phase thickner to slightly extend the life of a box before final failure. BUT 99% of the additives sold are not used in connection with any kind of approvals and because they often interfere with add packs and fluid viscosity, do more harm than good. If the snake oil companies that had approvals or official recommendations published them on their web site, then the public could figure out what their products could do and what they could not, but that would be bad for business as not many transmission faults can be helped with an additive.
Snake oil additive companies are in regular trouble for false advertising, but their sites tend to avoid specific claims and stick to generalities to avoid trouble, even LM has taken some stick over their claims about how long a product lasts as the oil analysis companies didn't find Ceretec lasted any longer than the first oil change for example.
The important point with advertising is not to believe it until you have read the corresponding document or data from an independent source, for example I mentioned the ZF approval because I have read the actual ZF document, not because I read it on the LG site, so if you can find any current approvals please provide a link so we can see what they are for, because some small manufacturers will aprove anything if they get a mention on the other companies web site.
