Just curious as to where the higher oxidation rates evolved from as none of the prior posts made mention of that statement.
Z Max Addivitve
- Thread starter txrhino
- Start date
- Status
Carrol Shelby's reputation?
With all due respect (a part of me likes and admires him) the guy is a con man and an accomplished liar.
He got the original Cobra project off the ground by lying to both Ford and A.C. about committments he supposedly had from the other. He freely admitted this on some TV shows I saw on Speed.
About 15 or so years ago he got caught trying to pass off newly-welded-but-artifically-weathered Cobra chassis off as originals from his shop back in the '60s.
His intent was to cash in on the collector craze by selling dozens of cars built from these chassis as 'original' Cobras worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I said I like the guy, and I meant it, but I don't trust his word on anything.
With all due respect (a part of me likes and admires him) the guy is a con man and an accomplished liar.
He got the original Cobra project off the ground by lying to both Ford and A.C. about committments he supposedly had from the other. He freely admitted this on some TV shows I saw on Speed.
About 15 or so years ago he got caught trying to pass off newly-welded-but-artifically-weathered Cobra chassis off as originals from his shop back in the '60s.
His intent was to cash in on the collector craze by selling dozens of cars built from these chassis as 'original' Cobras worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I said I like the guy, and I meant it, but I don't trust his word on anything.
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
Think 'Ol Carroll needs the money that badly to sell out his reputation?
Need? I have no idea of his personal finances. However, greed is relentless and anyone can be consumed with it (and many are).
Look at it another way. Do you really think he 'believes' in the product and has a strong affection for ZMax? This product is not his passion - money is and has been for many years.
Think 'Ol Carroll needs the money that badly to sell out his reputation?
Need? I have no idea of his personal finances. However, greed is relentless and anyone can be consumed with it (and many are).
Look at it another way. Do you really think he 'believes' in the product and has a strong affection for ZMax? This product is not his passion - money is and has been for many years.
Of course some of the owners of companies selling products on this web site have no vested interest in promoting their products for profit...their just in it for humanitarian reasons.
Of course there is money trading hands. That at face value does not make the product worthless or worthwhile.
My point is that for whatever reasons the FTC let much of what ZMAX claimed stand..and let them continue to advertise and sell the stuff. They also backed it up with testing. Now you or I can still think that ZMAX is snake oil after the above...but it is still on the market after government scrutiny...something several products can no longer say
Also how would some of the products used religiously on this board stand up to the same scrutiny? Where is the real testing that the FTC made other additive hawkers provide?
I use and have used the products that are the gospel on this board. However I find it troubling that other products are attacked without fail for not providing anymore information then what the chosen products do...sometimes even more. Word of mouth about other products are brushed aside, while posts from anonymous posters are used by the chosen products to do the same..and most times are accepted
Why the double standard?
My point is that for whatever reasons the FTC let much of what ZMAX claimed stand..and let them continue to advertise and sell the stuff. They also backed it up with testing. Now you or I can still think that ZMAX is snake oil after the above...but it is still on the market after government scrutiny...something several products can no longer say
Also how would some of the products used religiously on this board stand up to the same scrutiny? Where is the real testing that the FTC made other additive hawkers provide?
I use and have used the products that are the gospel on this board. However I find it troubling that other products are attacked without fail for not providing anymore information then what the chosen products do...sometimes even more. Word of mouth about other products are brushed aside, while posts from anonymous posters are used by the chosen products to do the same..and most times are accepted
Why the double standard?
government scrutiny? Is that similar to API scrutiny? The FDA is a government agency that is a mass collection of fools. My trust is not placed in the government. Of course, some government agencies have good folks employed.
The point that makes me nervous is "...for whatever reasons the FTC let much of what ZMAX claimed stand...".
What real test procedures did the FTC require? I didn't see the link in this thread but may have overlooked it. Will you point me to it?
I do agree with you that posts from anonymous posters are silly to use for trying to sell me a product. They aren't accepted with me. Word of mouth from the average joe does little to sell to me either.
The point that makes me nervous is "...for whatever reasons the FTC let much of what ZMAX claimed stand...".
What real test procedures did the FTC require? I didn't see the link in this thread but may have overlooked it. Will you point me to it?
I do agree with you that posts from anonymous posters are silly to use for trying to sell me a product. They aren't accepted with me. Word of mouth from the average joe does little to sell to me either.
tenderloin, I'm not against people making money. We all have to. However, you hire a pitchman (or woman) as a way of adding credibility to you product and/or its claims. My point is that Carrol Shelby's credibility is seriously in question.
I like him as an old guy telling stories of the automotive glory days ... but that's it.
I feel similarly about Mario Andretti. I used to cheer for him at the racetrack but the nonsense he's said while pitching mufflers and Havoline makes me cringe. Mario doesn't out-and-out lie like Mr. Shelby, but it does make him appear rather foolish.
Bottomline, if the active ingredient (assuming there is one) in Zmax is worthwhile, chemists from major oil blenders would be using it ... or at least the boutique blenders would be.
I like him as an old guy telling stories of the automotive glory days ... but that's it.
I feel similarly about Mario Andretti. I used to cheer for him at the racetrack but the nonsense he's said while pitching mufflers and Havoline makes me cringe. Mario doesn't out-and-out lie like Mr. Shelby, but it does make him appear rather foolish.
Bottomline, if the active ingredient (assuming there is one) in Zmax is worthwhile, chemists from major oil blenders would be using it ... or at least the boutique blenders would be.
I too agree with the comments that tenderloin posted a short while ago as they certainly made sense. Regarding some comments made about the FTC and their testing protocol, the FTC individuals who have been involved with these aftermarket additive companies are not in my opinion automotive engineers or lubrication chemists. What they do is to hire expert witnesses who review data and give their opinion. Now if FTC does a good job and hires individuals who know that area of expertise, that is great. However, there have been instances where the individuals hired are really not that up on the subject matter and then there are problems.
I am still curious about that posting made by tempest regarding oxidation as I have yet to hear any claims made by zmax regarding reduced oxidation tendencies.
I am still curious about that posting made by tempest regarding oxidation as I have yet to hear any claims made by zmax regarding reduced oxidation tendencies.
Quote:
I am still curious about that posting made by tempest regarding oxidation as I have yet to hear any claims made by zmax regarding reduced oxidation tendencies.
In threads past and as I recall the FTC papers, it was noted that oxidation rates doubled in oils that used Z-max. This could be from debris cleaned, or (most likely) it is the Naphthenic oil in the Z-max oxidizing.
I am still curious about that posting made by tempest regarding oxidation as I have yet to hear any claims made by zmax regarding reduced oxidation tendencies.
In threads past and as I recall the FTC papers, it was noted that oxidation rates doubled in oils that used Z-max. This could be from debris cleaned, or (most likely) it is the Naphthenic oil in the Z-max oxidizing.
"is worthwhile, chemists from major oil blenders would be using it ... or at least the boutique blenders would be".
Does this also apply to Lube Control and Auto RX? Again, I use or have used these products in my vehicles. Just calling out what appears to be a double standard when it comes to "proving" the worth of these products by more than word of mouth or s few pictures....The same that is rejected concerning other additives
Does this also apply to Lube Control and Auto RX? Again, I use or have used these products in my vehicles. Just calling out what appears to be a double standard when it comes to "proving" the worth of these products by more than word of mouth or s few pictures....The same that is rejected concerning other additives
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I'd say that the main distinction is the sales pitch and the infomercial, tenderloin. None of the claims of the aforementioned site products are too outlandish or incredible. No one is taking Lube Control (I've never used it - don't have a clue) and saying ..drain your oil and keep driving like Prolong or Duralube. No one shows you an infomercial that shows some guy with a water cooler bottle showing you a whirlpool (Tornado)...etc..etc.
Now, again, some of these products may do some of what they claim ..or all of what they claim to some limited extent. They, typically, never end up being a value when measured in terms of cost vs. benefit.
Now one could surely argue that lots of stuff can fall into this realm ..everything from synthetic oil ..to bypass filters ..to number of other things ...but those products do perform as they are designed and do as they claimed. The only mis-match in cost:benefit is the sensiblity of their use and (probably) not using them to the point of benefit.
There's no way to turn $50 worth of product that can only produce $10 in benefit into a value no matter who sells it ..or how truthful or sincere they are. Those endorsements cost $$$$$ and it will sell product.
Now, again, some of these products may do some of what they claim ..or all of what they claim to some limited extent. They, typically, never end up being a value when measured in terms of cost vs. benefit.
Now one could surely argue that lots of stuff can fall into this realm ..everything from synthetic oil ..to bypass filters ..to number of other things ...but those products do perform as they are designed and do as they claimed. The only mis-match in cost:benefit is the sensiblity of their use and (probably) not using them to the point of benefit.
There's no way to turn $50 worth of product that can only produce $10 in benefit into a value no matter who sells it ..or how truthful or sincere they are. Those endorsements cost $$$$$ and it will sell product.
Well has anyone here used zMax? That may be a better question.
Well said Gary. The price charged for 50 cents worth of mineral oil tells a long story too.
The price charged for 50 cents worth of mineral oil tells a long story too.
I rest my case......No facts, No personal use, NO testing, just repeating what is posted by others repeating what they read on here, repeating others who are repeating what they read on this site...on and on. Yet other additives get off basically free?
BTW Gary I don't believe ZMAX has stated the wild claims that some other companies have stated. I do have a friend who swears that their new Toyota truck ran for miles with very little oil (he claims pan was almost empty) after his oil filter worked loose. He had used Prolong
Again, I am not so much sticking up for certain products. I just find it amusing that millions spent on testing is blown off, but Joe Blow poster stating "great product Frank" gets some giggly with excitement, approval and product recommendations
I rest my case......No facts, No personal use, NO testing, just repeating what is posted by others repeating what they read on here, repeating others who are repeating what they read on this site...on and on. Yet other additives get off basically free?
BTW Gary I don't believe ZMAX has stated the wild claims that some other companies have stated. I do have a friend who swears that their new Toyota truck ran for miles with very little oil (he claims pan was almost empty) after his oil filter worked loose. He had used Prolong
Again, I am not so much sticking up for certain products. I just find it amusing that millions spent on testing is blown off, but Joe Blow poster stating "great product Frank" gets some giggly with excitement, approval and product recommendations
OK tenderloin so what's it composed of then?
I ordered some zMax last week, and I did so because I was impressed by their long history, the FCC ruling, and their FAA approval status. I was open minded about it, and so I read as much as I could find on it. Then I bought two of their nearly $50 kits, at the bargain price of $10 each, plus shipping.
I had never seen their infomercial. The other day, I finally did see their infomercial though, on the "Truck U" TV show, and the apparent size and wealth of their organization, evidenced by their very well equipped lavish testing facility, only served to make me suspicious. It is like Gary said. It is the tone of their claims. I Have to say, that I really found the carnival atmosphere of their infomercial, to really be a bit overmuch. I tried to be optimistic, and yet as the zMax presentation droned on, I more than ever regretted having bought zMax, to the z max.
I have never once, ever heard anyone I know in real life, say anything positive about how zMax worked for their vehicle, and I find that interesting considering how long it has been around. Now ARX, on the other hand, is apparently a low overhead operation. The ARX people don't have any big expensive infomercials at all. Their packing is not a big sexy "scientific looking", clear plastic "beakerish" bottle, filled with a softly pastel colored clear liquid. No far from it, ARX packaging, is merely sedately functional, and within it is a smaller amount of some rather scruffy looking stuff, which like 'the medicine that actually works', is anything but appealing aesthetically in any way at all. Their product, ARX, is however raved about by those of good reputation, who are also more than a little skeptical of "additives" generally. I have also met people in real life, who really do actually know a bit about cars, and they also swear ARX is nothing short of amazing. My personal experience thus far bears this out also.
Sadly I am afraid, my personal experience with zMax shall remain limited, unless and until I see some real evidence that it works.
It takes more than expensive infomercials and fancy packaging, from a well moneyed outfit like Speedway Motorsports, Inc, who hold Oil-Chem Research, the manufacturers and marketers of zMAX, in subsidiary. Looks to me like they bought zMax cheap, because it was failing miserably, hence all the bargain priced old stock being pushed, and they are pumping BIG BUCKS into the usual media hyperbole hoping to 'ride it home' on a fuzzy FTC ruling, and to my mind suspect FAA approval, which may or may not hold up much longer.
Tenderloin, if you like, I will sell you my two "kits" of zMax for what I paid for it. Otherwise I shall enshrine it my garage, to remind me in future to be a bit more careful, as I was when I waited two years before finally buying ARX.
I had never seen their infomercial. The other day, I finally did see their infomercial though, on the "Truck U" TV show, and the apparent size and wealth of their organization, evidenced by their very well equipped lavish testing facility, only served to make me suspicious. It is like Gary said. It is the tone of their claims. I Have to say, that I really found the carnival atmosphere of their infomercial, to really be a bit overmuch. I tried to be optimistic, and yet as the zMax presentation droned on, I more than ever regretted having bought zMax, to the z max.
I have never once, ever heard anyone I know in real life, say anything positive about how zMax worked for their vehicle, and I find that interesting considering how long it has been around. Now ARX, on the other hand, is apparently a low overhead operation. The ARX people don't have any big expensive infomercials at all. Their packing is not a big sexy "scientific looking", clear plastic "beakerish" bottle, filled with a softly pastel colored clear liquid. No far from it, ARX packaging, is merely sedately functional, and within it is a smaller amount of some rather scruffy looking stuff, which like 'the medicine that actually works', is anything but appealing aesthetically in any way at all. Their product, ARX, is however raved about by those of good reputation, who are also more than a little skeptical of "additives" generally. I have also met people in real life, who really do actually know a bit about cars, and they also swear ARX is nothing short of amazing. My personal experience thus far bears this out also.
Sadly I am afraid, my personal experience with zMax shall remain limited, unless and until I see some real evidence that it works.
It takes more than expensive infomercials and fancy packaging, from a well moneyed outfit like Speedway Motorsports, Inc, who hold Oil-Chem Research, the manufacturers and marketers of zMAX, in subsidiary. Looks to me like they bought zMax cheap, because it was failing miserably, hence all the bargain priced old stock being pushed, and they are pumping BIG BUCKS into the usual media hyperbole hoping to 'ride it home' on a fuzzy FTC ruling, and to my mind suspect FAA approval, which may or may not hold up much longer.
Tenderloin, if you like, I will sell you my two "kits" of zMax for what I paid for it. Otherwise I shall enshrine it my garage, to remind me in future to be a bit more careful, as I was when I waited two years before finally buying ARX.
I used z-max and Prolong in the late 90's. I wouldn't use them again.
They didn't damage any engine parts (that I know of), and I believe that the Prolong actually increased the mileage in my '89 Honda Accord. (I was getting 34-35 mpg)
I do believe that over time the chlorinated parrafins would have damaged the engine. I stopped using them when I started researching.
That's my story. My name is Groucho Marx and i'm an oilaholic.
They didn't damage any engine parts (that I know of), and I believe that the Prolong actually increased the mileage in my '89 Honda Accord. (I was getting 34-35 mpg)
I do believe that over time the chlorinated parrafins would have damaged the engine. I stopped using them when I started researching.
That's my story. My name is Groucho Marx and i'm an oilaholic.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
BTW Gary I don't believe ZMAX has stated the wild claims that some other companies have stated.
That's not the impression that I got from their infomercials. They claimed "increased power! Better fuel economy! Lower emissions! etc..etc." ..and they may, in fact, deliver all of those things to some degree ..for some duration of time. One would imagine that, in light of such wide spread promotion ..if there was some sensible economy of inherent value there ..that Zmax would be in every tank and crankcase. It's not like everyone wasn't exposed to it.
Quote:
I just find it amusing that millions spent on testing is blown off, but Joe Blow poster stating "great product Frank" gets some giggly with excitement, approval and product recommendations
It can surely appear that way. I would not recommend Auto-Rx if I had not seen and experienced the results myself. We've seen a multitude of before and after visual examples to show that there is something to the notion that the product works. It's not like Frank collected a few pals to show you how it worked on their engines. Totally unrelated/unaffiliated people from a broad demographic sampling have experienced favorable to fantastic results. An extremely low number of people have experienced no apparent benefit.
At this point, after the basic awareness of the infomercial marketing method, I really doubt that Frank could engage in such a campaign. The costs in "insurance" and the necessary endorsements needed to pull such a marketing campaign off would either raise the price too high for even the most obsessed wallet flattener...or would dilute the product to mediocre performance. I'm sure that Zmax (and some others) had it's bout of refunds and law suits that were all factored into the marketing model. This is why some marketing and economists can be/appear totally devoid of any sense of a given product's purpose/performance. It doesn't alter how they're going to sell something. They just know widgits and fill in the marketing-scape around it to fit the need. This is what resulted in a $0.50 ingredient (or whatever) turning into (IIRC) up to a $70 package. We're no longer a mass of people looking for places to spend our money for a "feeling" ..or at least those who are ..are in retreat in numbers. Pet rocks comes to mind. I have nothing against advertisers and their marketing professionals ..but that's how you sell a penny for a dollar
BTW Gary I don't believe ZMAX has stated the wild claims that some other companies have stated.
That's not the impression that I got from their infomercials. They claimed "increased power! Better fuel economy! Lower emissions! etc..etc." ..and they may, in fact, deliver all of those things to some degree ..for some duration of time. One would imagine that, in light of such wide spread promotion ..if there was some sensible economy of inherent value there ..that Zmax would be in every tank and crankcase. It's not like everyone wasn't exposed to it.
Quote:
I just find it amusing that millions spent on testing is blown off, but Joe Blow poster stating "great product Frank" gets some giggly with excitement, approval and product recommendations
It can surely appear that way. I would not recommend Auto-Rx if I had not seen and experienced the results myself. We've seen a multitude of before and after visual examples to show that there is something to the notion that the product works. It's not like Frank collected a few pals to show you how it worked on their engines. Totally unrelated/unaffiliated people from a broad demographic sampling have experienced favorable to fantastic results. An extremely low number of people have experienced no apparent benefit.
At this point, after the basic awareness of the infomercial marketing method, I really doubt that Frank could engage in such a campaign. The costs in "insurance" and the necessary endorsements needed to pull such a marketing campaign off would either raise the price too high for even the most obsessed wallet flattener...or would dilute the product to mediocre performance. I'm sure that Zmax (and some others) had it's bout of refunds and law suits that were all factored into the marketing model. This is why some marketing and economists can be/appear totally devoid of any sense of a given product's purpose/performance. It doesn't alter how they're going to sell something. They just know widgits and fill in the marketing-scape around it to fit the need. This is what resulted in a $0.50 ingredient (or whatever) turning into (IIRC) up to a $70 package. We're no longer a mass of people looking for places to spend our money for a "feeling" ..or at least those who are ..are in retreat in numbers. Pet rocks comes to mind. I have nothing against advertisers and their marketing professionals ..but that's how you sell a penny for a dollar
- Status
