: Anyone use ZMax Treatment?



Lifer
03-29-09, 06:01 PM
Seems to get an above ordinary push on cable channel Speed. I can find no negative comments nor any real proof-positive comments on the web. So I ask - any one out there use it? OK, and if so, does it do what they say (besides just soak into metal)?

C&C
03-30-09, 07:03 AM
I remain skeptical but have no data, either way, to endorse or condemn.

Aurora5000
03-30-09, 11:02 AM
http://www.epinions.com/reviews/zMAX_Micro_Lubricant/sec_~opinion_list/pp_~1/pa_~1#list

BaTu
03-30-09, 11:42 AM
SCAM!!!

Zmax is nothing but a colored mineral oil scam and the FTC has know it for Many years!

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/02/zmax1.shtm

Aurora5000
03-30-09, 01:16 PM
I use Seafoam in my gas at oil change time.

racetek27
11-01-10, 10:32 PM
BaTu is very misinformed aboutthe zMax product. Cadillac Division issued a PI recommending zMax after conducting a 14 month field test on oil burn and piston noise cars and experienced a 73 % cure rate with zMax.

Go to Bob Is The Oil Guy web site. They have some great info on the zMax posted by one of their founding members named Johnny.

Submariner409
11-02-10, 10:35 AM
..........remember that the "bobistheoilguy" sites are sponsored by oil additive manufacturers - you have to read everything to get the correct picture........

BaTu is correct - zMax (like several other additive marketers) has been in and out of court with the Federal Trade Commission for unsubstantiated product performance and advertising claims.

Ask your Cadillac Service Writer to look up the TSB on engine oil additives for GM use. If you have an Alldatadiy subscription you can surf all GM TSB's to your hearts' content.

Bottom line: If these products are so good for your engine, oil, metal, mileage, longevity, economy - then why aren't they recommended by at least ONE automotive manufacturer in the world ??? (It's like my year group and the 100mpg carburetor - there ain't no such thing.............) I hate to tell you how much Marvel Mystery Oil I have gone through in 55 years of wrenching - hope springs eternal !!!!

BaTu
11-02-10, 11:10 AM
Year and half later, still a SCAM..... ;)

racetek27
11-04-10, 09:13 PM
Year and half later, still a SCAM..... ;)

BaTu...........

Sorry but your posting false information about zMax. zMax did successfully prove each and every one of their performance claims through extensive ASTM/SAE Testing. The BITOG site has members posting the independent test info.

GM Cadillac Northstar Division, did conduct a 14 month, 80 car field performance evaluation with zMax helping the oil burn and piston noise problems very successfully.

GM Cadillac Northstar Division then issued a PI ( Performance Information ) recommending the use of zMax. It's posted on the BITOG site so members, check it out.

Tech savy members will comprehend and appreciate all the field and lab test evaluating the product has done over the last 50 years.

zMax successfully tested and kept every performance claim when challenged once back in 2001 by the FTC.

Their marketing company hired to do their Infomercial had put a percent number next to the fuel mileage claim and that cost the company 1 million for that marketing error. Percent numbers are not allowed because of the variables in driving habits, vehicle types, etc for the average consumer driving a vehicle.

Today, years later ( well beyond a year and a half ) since the case was concluded in 2003, zMax continues to make each and every one of it's performance claims.

You'd be hard pressed to find another product with zMax's extensive lab and field performance testing background.

EChas3
11-04-10, 10:26 PM
A healthy N* doesn't need it. Why bother.

BaTu
11-05-10, 11:02 AM
So Ahh,,, racetek27.... How long have you worked for Zmax ;) You on commission??? :D

Is the "27" your age? (just curious)

If the FCC claims were ultimately proved false, as you're claiming, please provide evidence of that to back up your claims... (this is, of course, something not from Zmax themselves or from the "shills" at BITOG. But rather an independent conclusion, preferably from the FCC)

Dose it exist, or is this just more smoke & mirrors? I certainly haven't followed the story since it came out, but then Zmax isn't putting food on my table :-P

dkozloski
11-05-10, 12:24 PM
On the internet you can find hundreds of testimonial letters about UFOs, astrology, alien abductions, and automotive oil additives. The problem is that they're all written by the same people.

In the court case that followed a falling out between the partners of "Slick 50", it came out that the product was ground up scrap plastic and reclaimed crankcase drainings.

STP paid the biggest consumer fraud fine in history after years of bilking the public with the crap they sold.

M.A.C
11-05-10, 04:58 PM
Here is BOB IS THE OIL GUY link (http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=864384&page=1), which states that ZMax is recommended by GM to help alleviate carbon knock and oil consumption.

BaTu
11-05-10, 05:50 PM
Here is BOB IS THE OIL GUY link (http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=864384&page=1), which states that ZMax is recommended by GM to help alleviate carbon knock and oil consumption.

Unfortunately, Bob (the BITOG quoted above) has lost all his credibility since it has come to light that he is a consultant for, and in the general employ of, the "oil additive industry" :(

He's no source, he's someone else for whom Zmax is putting food on his table ;)

The FCC, on the other hand, isn't currently on Zmax's payroll, They were the one who brought the complaint, I'd like to see Their resolution (and the fact that they might not have further pursued the situation doesn't carry water either. I'm sure they have a "full plate" and have to prioritize their cases)

SlickCityStan
11-05-10, 06:29 PM
Why should I need an oil additve if I am using a high quality 100% synthetic oil that is recommended by the engine manufacturer?:hmm:

SlickCityStan
11-05-10, 06:37 PM
from Alldata: GM4718M Your vehicle's engine requires a special oil meeting GM Standard GM4718M. Oils meeting this standard may be identified as synthetic. However, not all synthetic oils will meet this GM standard. You should look for and use only an oil that meets GM Standard GM4718M. NOTICE: If you use oils that do not have the GM4718M Standard designation, you can cause engine damage not covered by your warranty.
SAE 5W-30 As shown in the viscosity chart, SAE 5W-30 is best for your vehicle. These numbers on an oil container show its viscosity, or thickness. Do not use other viscosity oils such as SAE 20W-50. Oils meeting these requirements should also have the starburst symbol on the container. This symbol indicates that the oil has been certified by the American Petroleum Institute (API). You should look for this on the oil container, and use only those oils that are identified as meeting GM Standard GM4718M and have the starburst symbol on the front of the oil container. Your vehicle's engine is filled at the factory with a Mobil 1 synthetic oil, which meets all requirements for your vehicle. Substitute Engine Oil: When adding oil to maintain engine oil level, oil meeting GM Standard GM4718M may not be available. You can add substitute oil designated SAE 5W-30 with the starburst symbol at all temperatures. Substitute oil not meeting GM Standard GM4718M should not be used for an oil change.
ENGINE OIL ADDITIVES
Do not add anything to your oil. The recommended oils with the starburst symbol that meet GM Standard GM4718M are all you will need for good performance and engine protection.

SlickCityStan
11-05-10, 06:53 PM
This excerpt is from GM TSB #05-00-89-072B dated June 5,2008 and pertains to GM passenger cars models 2009 and prior. Please note the last paragraph!

WHAT NOT TO DO: Engine and Fuel Additives, Alternate Fuels, and "Miracle" Products

Various unproven products with claims to improve vehicle fuel economy have been reported ranging from magnets that align molecules to chemical combustion improvers.

Most products claiming to provide benefits are based on unsubstantiated claims. Those that do present "scientific" results generally either have too little supporting data to be conclusive, have not conducted experiments in a controlled fashion, or cannot be substantiated by anyone else but the product's manufacturer.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission summarizes results for products tested by the federal government at www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut10.shtm. A review of the list shows that the majority did not work, and for those that showed some effect, the benefit was too small to be cost effective.

Harmful Ideas That May Damage Your Vehicle and Increase Emissions

One more recent poor idea to improve fuel economy that should not be attempted is to blend either kerosene or diesel fuel into gasoline. Why? Both kerosene and diesel fuel are distillate fuels meant for use in compression ignition engines, not spark ignition engines. They have very low octane and since they are heavier (higher density) than gasoline, they will cause heavy engine deposits and degradation of engine oil.

Notice: Never put Kerosene or Diesel Fuel in your Gasoline Engine vehicle. This may result in inconsistent performance and permanent damage to your vehicle that is not covered by your New Vehicle Warranty.

Chemicals that are normally used as solvents also should not be used. These include acetone, ketones, and methanol. These solvents can be incompatible with your vehicles rubber or sealing components, and may dissolve the vehicle's paint finish. In the case of methanol, corrosion of metal parts in the fuel system also may occur.

Notice: Never use acetone, ketones, or methanol additives in your vehicle. Some of these solvents may damage or corrode your fuel system. They are also very damaging to the painted surfaces of the vehicle if spilled. Damage to vehicle components that result from non-approved or aftermarket additives and devices are not covered under the terms of the New Vehicle Warranty. The only fuel additive currently approved by GM is GM Fuel System Treatment Plus, P/N 88861011 (in Canada, # 88861012).

WHAT TO DO: Maximizing Fuel Economy/Minimizing Costs

The best fuel economy possible is the direct result of proper maintenance and good driving habits. Listed below are GM's recommendations to achieve the best mileage possible. The first group are things to consider for your vehicle, while the second are tips relating to your driving habits.

Vehicle Considerations:

^ Tire Pressure - One of the major contributors to poor fuel economy are under inflated tires. Tires low on pressure create drag that the vehicle's powertrain must overcome, wasting dollars in fuel. Always keep your tires inflated to the proper pressure as shown on the vehicle placard. This not only serves to increase gas mileage but cuts down on tire wear, further decreasing your costs per mile.

^ Air Filter - A vehicle that has a dirty air filter can't efficiently draw air into the engine. This restriction forces the engine to expend energy to "breathe" wasting fuel in the process. Change recommendations are found in your vehicle Owner's Manual.

^ Proper Viscosity "Starburst" Rated Oil - Always use the proper viscosity oil in your engine. Oil that has a higher than required viscosity will create more drag on the internal components of the engine, causing more work for it, especially when cold. Each Owner's Manual contains information on the proper type of oil for your vehicle. Look for the "starburst" symbol on the front of the bottle, and the SM rating on the API circle on the back label. If you are in doubt, stop by your dealer for an oil change, and any other services required. Most current GM vehicles are equipped with oil life monitors to further assist on the "when" to change your oil. (Aveo/Wave/Optra/Epica currently do not have oil life monitors).

Notice: GM Vehicles DO NOT require additional engine oil additives. Some additives may cause harmful effects to the internal seals and additionally void the terms of your vehicles New Car Warranty.

racetek27
11-05-10, 07:47 PM
So Ahh,,, racetek27.... How long have you worked for Zmax ;) You on commission??? :D

Is the "27" your age? (just curious)

If the FCC claims were ultimately proved false, as you're claiming, please provide evidence of that to back up your claims... (this is, of course, something not from Zmax themselves or from the "shills" at BITOG. But rather an independent conclusion, preferably from the FCC)

Dose it exist, or is this just more smoke & mirrors? I certainly haven't followed the story since it came out, but then Zmax isn't putting food on my table :-P

BaTu,

Lol, since you've asked.... Actually the 27 stands for several things.... that's the number of years that I've rebuilt aircraft engines in my FAA Certified Repair Station using AvBlend/zMax in all my customers engines .... also that's the number of our Dallara- Oldsmobile V8 powered Indy 500 car which we owned and built up our own engines for in the IRL. It's the same car that our driver Jim Guthrie beat Tony Stewart driving the Menard/Glidden car at the Phoenix 200 race in a 25 lap trophy dash finish.

Needless to say that I know my product and how it works in engines... very well ! The question is not how long I've worked for zMax but how many years as an experienced engine builder/technician, that I've used the product extensively and can talk engine theory-application very knowledgeable to anyone on this site...... unlike yourself who is throwing out unsupported and false post's about zMax.

Anyone can log onto the FTC site and look up the case as it's public information. The case lasted 2.5 years, which is not a 50 yard dash and when zMax satisfied the FTC and their expert witnesses, zMax was granted the right to make each and every performance claim ( less a percentage number on it's fuel mileage improvement claim ).

You ask does it exist ??? and you state you haven't followed the story ??? I ask then why are you making negative statements about the case when you haven't followed it, don't have a clue about it or taken the time to look up the information that's all available to read ?

Type in Bob is the Oil Guy zmax cadillac and something should show up to click on directly to. And BuTu, the actual Cadillac PI is shown on the post !!!!!!

racetek27
11-05-10, 08:27 PM
This excerpt is from GM TSB #05-00-89-072B dated June 5,2008 and pertains to GM passenger cars models 2009 and prior. Please note the last paragraph!

WHAT NOT TO DO: Engine and Fuel Additives, Alternate Fuels, and "Miracle" Products

Various unproven products with claims to improve vehicle fuel economy have been reported ranging from magnets that align molecules to chemical combustion improvers.

Most products claiming to provide benefits are based on unsubstantiated claims. Those that do present "scientific" results generally either have too little supporting data to be conclusive, have not conducted experiments in a controlled fashion, or cannot be substantiated by anyone else but the product's manufacturer.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission summarizes results for products tested by the federal government at www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut10.shtm. A review of the list shows that the majority did not work, and for those that showed some effect, the benefit was too small to be cost effective.

Harmful Ideas That May Damage Your Vehicle and Increase Emissions

One more recent poor idea to improve fuel economy that should not be attempted is to blend either kerosene or diesel fuel into gasoline. Why? Both kerosene and diesel fuel are distillate fuels meant for use in compression ignition engines, not spark ignition engines. They have very low octane and since they are heavier (higher density) than gasoline, they will cause heavy engine deposits and degradation of engine oil.

Notice: Never put Kerosene or Diesel Fuel in your Gasoline Engine vehicle. This may result in inconsistent performance and permanent damage to your vehicle that is not covered by your New Vehicle Warranty.

Chemicals that are normally used as solvents also should not be used. These include acetone, ketones, and methanol. These solvents can be incompatible with your vehicles rubber or sealing components, and may dissolve the vehicle's paint finish. In the case of methanol, corrosion of metal parts in the fuel system also may occur.

Notice: Never use acetone, ketones, or methanol additives in your vehicle. Some of these solvents may damage or corrode your fuel system. They are also very damaging to the painted surfaces of the vehicle if spilled. Damage to vehicle components that result from non-approved or aftermarket additives and devices are not covered under the terms of the New Vehicle Warranty. The only fuel additive currently approved by GM is GM Fuel System Treatment Plus, P/N 88861011 (in Canada, # 88861012).

WHAT TO DO: Maximizing Fuel Economy/Minimizing Costs

The best fuel economy possible is the direct result of proper maintenance and good driving habits. Listed below are GM's recommendations to achieve the best mileage possible. The first group are things to consider for your vehicle, while the second are tips relating to your driving habits.

Vehicle Considerations:

^ Tire Pressure - One of the major contributors to poor fuel economy are under inflated tires. Tires low on pressure create drag that the vehicle's powertrain must overcome, wasting dollars in fuel. Always keep your tires inflated to the proper pressure as shown on the vehicle placard. This not only serves to increase gas mileage but cuts down on tire wear, further decreasing your costs per mile.

^ Air Filter - A vehicle that has a dirty air filter can't efficiently draw air into the engine. This restriction forces the engine to expend energy to "breathe" wasting fuel in the process. Change recommendations are found in your vehicle Owner's Manual.

^ Proper Viscosity "Starburst" Rated Oil - Always use the proper viscosity oil in your engine. Oil that has a higher than required viscosity will create more drag on the internal components of the engine, causing more work for it, especially when cold. Each Owner's Manual contains information on the proper type of oil for your vehicle. Look for the "starburst" symbol on the front of the bottle, and the SM rating on the API circle on the back label. If you are in doubt, stop by your dealer for an oil change, and any other services required. Most current GM vehicles are equipped with oil life monitors to further assist on the "when" to change your oil. (Aveo/Wave/Optra/Epica currently do not have oil life monitors).

Notice: GM Vehicles DO NOT require additional engine oil additives. Some additives may cause harmful effects to the internal seals and additionally void the terms of your vehicles New Car Warranty.

Slickcitystan raises a valid point on why not to use "Oil Additives " per GM's position.

For the members knowledge,since zMax is added to the engine oil, a misconception may exist that zMax is an additive for engine oils.

This is incorrect as the SAE J357 OCT99 Information Report Physical and Chemical Properties of Engine Oil's provides this definition. " A LUBRICANT ADDITIVE AGENT IS A MATERIAL DESIGNED TO ENHANCE THE PERFORMANCE PROPERTIES OF THE BASE STOCK OR TO IMPROVE THE BASE STOCK PROPERTIES THAT DO NOT NATURALLY EXIST WITH THE BASE STOCK ".

Clearly, zMax does neither of these who functions, as it is not designed to improve or enhance any qualities of the engine oil. Introducing it into the engine oil is merely the means to transport zMax directly to the engine's metallurgy.

For those members interested, here's the info on the GM PI :

Subject: Knocking Noises Or Excessive Oil Consumption-keywords
carbon cold piston valve zmax # PIP3951- ( 10/19/2006 )

BaTu
11-05-10, 08:31 PM
Needless to say that I know my product and how it works in engines... very well ! The question is not how long I've worked for zMax but how many years as an experienced engine builder/technician


So, you seem to be dodging the question..... You know, the QUESTION - have you ever been employed by, or received money from Zmax :devil:


BaTu,
Anyone can log onto the FTC site and look up the case as it's public information.

Including you? After all it was you who resurrected this old thread to say the FCC claim was wrong....

Find it, post it, and I'll believe it! :cool:

racetek27
11-05-10, 09:17 PM
So, you seem to be dodging the question..... You know, the QUESTION - have you ever been employed by, or received money from Zmax :devil:



Including you? After all it was you who resurrected this old thread to say the FCC claim was wrong....

Find it, post it, and I'll believe it! :cool:

Not dodging the question at all. My name is Ed Rachanski and I'm Technical Director for Oil Chem Research who manufacturers zMax. How else would someone have the knowledge to properly set the facts straight from people like yourself who are posting frivilous lies about the product for an unseen reason.

You have provided nothing to the fellow members to quantify your unprofessional post's and I'm confident that you won't .

This forum contains members that are honest and sincere on learning about products which can help their vehicles. I need to ask you what competitor you work for because no one post's the kind of ridiculous comments your making unless your on a mission to soley discredit a product, which is what your using this forum for.

I also can correctly state that my family used the product since the 1960's many years as engine builders and technicians before ever working with the product. Members can visit www.fabulousracers.com to learn more.

The different people,agency's like the FTC,FAA, GM Northstar Division and many other professionals in their respective fields have tested and evaluated zMax on their own opinions and those are the sources I'm directing the members to which are all respectable and independent from zMax with their own opinions.

The members must ask themself, what's most important....based on my technical background, having myself provide strictly technical information to them that is credible and properly supported by respected people and company/agency's .......or have another member like yourself use this site as a means of damaging a product that can prove itself credible. Your post's are very damaging and totally without support.

I hope some members call upon you to back up your post's as I know I can and will !

racetek27
11-05-10, 09:42 PM
So, you seem to be dodging the question..... You know, the QUESTION - have you ever been employed by, or received money from Zmax :devil:



Including you? After all it was you who resurrected this old thread to say the FCC claim was wrong....

Find it, post it, and I'll believe it! :cool:

Go to the companies site and click on FTC, they will have a link that directs you right to the FTC site. To correct you, it's FTC not FCC.

Thanks

SlickCityStan
11-05-10, 09:52 PM
This may sound simplistic and untechnical but if you ADD it, then it must be an additive. and I feel that being an employee might tend to make a person slightly biased in favor of his company product. So I would like to see this GM PI you refer to from a GM source. If you can provide a link it would be greatly appreciated. Or if there is a forum member who is a GM employee who can post the actual PI your help is needed.

racetek27
11-05-10, 10:20 PM
This may sound simplistic and untechnical but if you ADD it, then it must be an additive. and I feel that being an employee might tend to make a person slightly biased in favor of his company product. So I would like to see this GM PI you refer to from a GM source. If you can provide a link it would be greatly appreciated. Or if there is a forum member who is a GM employee who can post the actual PI your help is needed.

SlickCityStan,

Your right in saying that being added places us into the additive catagory. The SAE definition of an additive I posted , technically defines what an additive agent is.

I know that the product is classified as a Micro-Lubricant. In the aviation sector, the product is also placed into an additive catagory because that market as well doesn't have a catagory for Micro-Lubricant.

Be rest assured that when I discuss zMax on any of these forums, I can and do speak from a technical point and will always provide the necessary information using third party independent sources as much as possible.

My reason for participation is so the product is technically understood.

I can fax a copy of the PI to you on Monday if you can give me a call at my 708-728-0028 number or I know that a member named Johnny posted the complete PI on the BITOG site.

If you google Bob is the Oil Guy zmax cadillac northstar, it should lead you to the post showing the actual PI. If not, I've provided the PI info on one of the previous posts so someone can call one of their contacts at a Cadillac Dealership and pull it up.

Thanks

EChas3
11-05-10, 10:37 PM
Why should I need an oil additve if I am using a high quality 100% synthetic oil that is recommended by the engine manufacturer?:hmm:

Dittos.

M.A.C
11-05-10, 11:37 PM
Not dodging the question at all. My name is Ed Rachanski and I'm Technical Director for Oil Chem Research who manufacturers zMax. How else would someone have the knowledge to properly set the facts straight from people like yourself who are posting frivilous lies about the product for an unseen reason.

You have provided nothing to the fellow members to quantify your unprofessional post's and I'm confident that you won't .

This forum contains members that are honest and sincere on learning about products which can help their vehicles. I need to ask you what competitor you work for because no one post's the kind of ridiculous comments your making unless your on a mission to soley discredit a product, which is what your using this forum for.

I also can correctly state that my family used the product since the 1960's many years as engine builders and technicians before ever working with the product. Members can visit www.fabulousracers.com (http://www.fabulousracers.com) to learn more.

The different people,agency's like the FTC,FAA, GM Northstar Division and many other professionals in their respective fields have tested and evaluated zMax on their own opinions and those are the sources I'm directing the members to which are all respectable and independent from zMax with their own opinions.

The members must ask themself, what's most important....based on my technical background, having myself provide strictly technical information to them that is credible and properly supported by respected people and company/agency's .......or have another member like yourself use this site as a means of damaging a product that can prove itself credible. Your post's are very damaging and totally without support.

I hope some members call upon you to back up your post's as I know I can and will !
The key question as far as I'm concerned is whether GM's Northstar Division recommends zMax for Northstar engines. Do you have a link that can shed light on this topic? If GM does indeed recommend zMax then criticisms about using zMax in Northstar engines should be put to rest. If GM does recommend zMax then arguing against using it will essentially be refuting GM's recommendation. At this point it would seem that GM tested zMax and found it to be effective against carbon build up and oil burning but has not officially endorsed zMax?

BaTu
11-06-10, 12:00 PM
OK Ed, thx for finally coming "clean" :thepan: (you're kind of a slippery guy aren't ya? must be the LinKite :) )


You have providing nothing to the fellow members to quantify your unprofessional post's and I'm confident that you won't .

Wait a min... I am the ONLY guy who's actually provided proof.... It's YOU who makes claims he can't back-up. I provided a link to the FTC (sorry about the typo), with a Civil Action & Claim number, where they make this statement;

"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"

And further says;

"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."[i]

YOU then say to me ->
have another member like yourself use this site as a means of damaging a product that can prove itself credible. Your post's are very damaging and totally without support.????????????????????????

You ain't slick pal.... Your [i]Snake Oil isn't either apparently :histeric:

I Ask AGAIN If, in fact, the FTC has reversed it statements, Now says they were wrong, your "elixir" isn't actually "tinted mineral oil (THEIR WORDS, that I repeated) then Put Up or Shut Up!

Forget Bob, provide the FTC link, a statement by them that their previous claims were unsupported, and that they were wrong about your product.

For a second time Find it, Post it, I'll Believe it"

Until then, your product is a scam (as is 99% of All additives) AND, YOU yourself, are a scammer selling a worthless product that actually "produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion than motor oil alone" (Again more words from the FTC action)

You want to spin this, create more smoke to hide behind by directing your attack on me with claims like
"people like yourself who are posting frivolous lies about the product for an unseen reason"

Because I am Not the one making these claims, but rather a branch of our Federal Government is in reaction to your products many misrepresentations. In response, you claim "frivolous lies" :hmm:

So, Again, End it all with the proof you keep claiming is on the FTC site but seem unable to actually find.........

Jesda
11-06-10, 12:25 PM
:food-snacking:

BaTu
11-06-10, 02:04 PM
:food-snacking:

hehehhe

Poor ED.... :helpless:

As I'm thinking about all this, and wondering What's going on here?, I think of Ed. I mean, Ed's a smart guy - right? He certainly has No Problem tooting-his-own-horn (however accurate that might be,,,) BUT he's come here to get involved in an old thread that probably nobody would have ever read again!

What's that all about? How'd it start? AND has Ed actually done more damage to Zmax than if he'd simply "let sleeping dogs lay?"

What prompted Ed to do all this?:cookoo:

Has his contributions around the office gone unappreciated? Is he not as important to the effort as he thinks he is? Is it just Boredom that's gotten him to Google the word "Zmax" and head-out to do damage control? Maybe the "GM PI" he keeps touting is new and he's going around to GM sites with it......


[b}BUT[/b], in reality, what he's done by bringing this up again is to re-expose Zmax to the light!

In the original thread, I said "FCC / mineral oil / Scam" and provided a link.

How many people followed that link? maybe 1/2? Of that, how many read the entire thing? maybe 1/4? Not alot of people and certainly no one recently.

NOW, (since frankly I've read it thoroughly) he's got the specifics of the Civil Action like;

Damages bearings

"Fudging" tests

Colored Mineral Oil (again)

all in the post!

Maybe Ed's not as smart as he thinks he is....:canttalk:

I gotta believe the FTC hasn't retracted their accusations or Ed (who seems to have endless energy and time on his hands) would have found this document and posted it when I first asked him to. Instead, he blows smoke so, I'm pretty certain it doesn't exist.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Ed will come back with something more from the Feds that exonerate Zmax, if he does, I'll say he's right!

BUT, if it were going to happen, I'd think it it would have by now....

note to Ed.... if you come back, come back with something REAL, Not your buddy BOB, Not some other source, the original accuser THE FTC and their resolution of the matter in your favor please :D

dkozloski
11-06-10, 02:08 PM
I put ZMax in my gas tank and now I'm spending all my spare time out in the driveway draining my gas tank as it overflows. This stuff is guaranteeed not to rip, rot, rust, bust, pull apart at the seams, or run down at the heels. It's good for coughs, colds, and sore holes; hacks, wheezes, and venereal diseases. Not a fart in a car load.

The guy that sold it to me just left town on his way to Florida for the winter.

racetek27
11-06-10, 04:49 PM
Unfortunately, Bob (the BITOG quoted above) has lost all his credibility since it has come to light that he is a consultant for, and in the general employ of, the "oil additive industry" :(

He's no source, he's someone else for whom Zmax is putting food on his table ;)

The FCC, on the other hand, isn't currently on Zmax's payroll, They were the one who brought the complaint, I'd like to see Their resolution (and the fact that they might not have further pursued the situation doesn't carry water either. I'm sure they have a "full plate" and have to prioritize their cases)

The public can be rest assued that the Major Oil Players such as Pennzoil,Mobil,Lubrizol pay big dollars to help keep that BITOG site going.

The fact is with the money the Oil Companies spend to sponsor that site, they surely are not going to allow Additive Companies to provide sponsorship as well.

I can tell everyone that zMax has never been paid a cent for being a sponsor on BITOG site and has never been a sponsor in any form or fashion.

Your incorrect in stating that the BITOG Site has lost it's credibility. Again BaTu, please post this information/evidence that allows you to state BITOG has lost all credibility with the consumer so the members can recieve credible and honest information from you.

Millions of comsumers go to the site to obtain information on many topics.

And it's the FTC, not the FCC as you've stated ( Maybe that's why you dont find what your looking for ). The FTC case with zMax went 2.5 years and once zMax successfully performed the necessary ASTM/SAE Testing required by the FTC, they we're satisfied and concluded the case.

Your speculative and false comments about how the FTC might have done this or that is further incompetent comments on your part. I would recommend that you stop wasting quality member time unless you have credible support for your comments.

racetek27
11-06-10, 05:14 PM
hehehhe

Poor ED.... :helpless:

As I'm thinking about all this, and wondering What's going on here?, I think of Ed. I mean, Ed's a smart guy - right? He certainly has No Problem tooting-his-own-horn (however accurate that might be,,,) BUT he's come here to get involved in an old thread that probably nobody would have ever read again!

What's that all about? How'd it start? AND has Ed actually done more damage to Zmax than if he'd simply "let sleeping dogs lay?"

What prompted Ed to do all this?:cookoo:

Has his contributions around the office gone unappreciated? Is he not as important to the effort as he thinks he is? Is it just Boredom that's gotten him to Google the word "Zmax" and head-out to do damage control? Maybe the "GM PI" he keeps touting is new and he's going around to GM sites with it......


[b}BUT[/b], in reality, what he's done by bringing this up again is to re-expose Zmax to the light!

In the original thread, I said "FCC / mineral oil / Scam" and provided a link.

How many people followed that link? maybe 1/2? Of that, how many read the entire thing? maybe 1/4? Not alot of people and certainly no one recently.

NOW, (since frankly I've read it thoroughly) he's got the specifics of the Civil Action like;

Damages bearings

"Fudging" tests

Colored Mineral Oil (again)

all in the post!

Maybe Ed's not as smart as he thinks he is....:canttalk:

I gotta believe the FTC hasn't retracted their accusations or Ed (who seems to have endless energy and time on his hands) would have found this document and posted it when I first asked him to. Instead, he blows smoke so, I'm pretty certain it doesn't exist.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Ed will come back with something more from the Feds that exonerate Zmax, if he does, I'll say he's right!

BUT, if it were going to happen, I'd think it it would have by now....

note to Ed.... if you come back, come back with something REAL, Not your buddy BOB, Not some other source, the original accuser THE FTC and their resolution of the matter in your favor please :D

The reason for addressing an old link is because of your lack of intelligence on posting a comment about the FTC and zMax.

You don't have the intelligence to look it up yourself obviously,so I'll have to see if I can get something up on this site.

Then you can go crawl under a rock refrain from any further foolish posts.

On BITOG site , member Johnny explains in simple English, how to comprehend what is being stated. He provides the FTC link to log onto ( Not his or BITOG's comments or links as you lead to believe ).

All you've done again is post the initial complaint BEFORE any testing was performed and the correct conclusion posted.

You insult the FTC by stating that we don't work but yet we still are allowed making our performance claims years later ??????? Amazing !

Moles like yourself are the ones putting the initial complaint out in the publics eyes. You found the initial complaint yet somehow cannot find the conclusion and post it ???? Lol...........

dkozloski
11-06-10, 05:56 PM
The big clinker in the theory of the oil additive, or metal conditioner, or whatever current buzzword you're using is that before it can even come into play there has a be a failure of the primary lubrication element, the motor oil. As long as the motor oil does its job the additive is in no position to do anything. There is no metal to metal contact to fear. With the adoption of roller cam followers in nearly all modern engines, the last high pressure, sliding contact point in the engine, was eliminated. The amount of high pressure additive was greatly reduced in motor oils because it was no longer needed and it was a polluting chemical as well. Zmax now adresses a problem that no longer exists. There are millions of cars world-wide that go hundreds of thousands of trouble free miles without ever being within miles of Zmax because the original motor oils are more than sufficient for the job. At this point it makes very little difference if Zmax works or not because it could be salad oil and you'd never be able to tell the difference by the results observed.

BaTu
11-06-10, 07:50 PM
OMG ED!!!! I'm sorry but, you are just So FULL of $HIT!

You debate like a retarded 12yo. If you can't argue the Facts, attack the messenger,,,,,

Over & Over again, smoke and personal attacks because you can't simply dispute the FTC allegations :(

You're Pathetic, and have an amazing way of convoluting the facts while sadly trying to do a "Role Reversal" with me.

1) First you say I don't have any proof....

I have proof, it's the FTC proof (OF COURSE they did tests, what da think they did? Hold the bottle up to a light bulb and look through it to determine it damaged bearings? ;))

2) Then you say the FTC reversal is public info that anybody can see

But it's MY job to locate it to dispute my own findings (if it was there, you could have shut me up with your first post)

3) My new absolute favorite (and here you're out-done yourself with your demented reasoning) is that I'm the MOLE!!!!

Yea, I'm the devious one, I joined 2-1/2yrs ago, made 100's of posts just waiting for this day :D hehehe


The fact is Ed, you're a dishonest person, here dishonestly to ply your trade of a dishonest product.

You're come to our door, asking to be let in like the rest of us. All Cadillac owners & enthusiasts here to learn about our cars and share our experiences with them...

Is that You Ed? Is that why You joined us five days ago? Or are you, in FACT, the MOLE? You came wearing a mask, rang the doorbell and asked to be let in to the party. Once inside your true motives came out, you have a wonderful new product. It's a magnet that treats the whole houses water by putting it on the main....

The dishes will sparkle, our hair will be shiny and our clothes cleaner :hmm:

You're a Liar, You could have easily joined as a vendor and paid a couple of bucks and been honest about why you were here. But that's not you way is it Ed?

You want to talk about credibility and professionalism? You have none here, you've revealed yourself already. You're just a con man, a carnival barker with a prize in every bar of soap.

And ENOUGH ALREADY with the childish posts. If you finally have the facts from the FTC then post them.

Otherwise, put your tail between your legs and leave, no sense in continuing to make yourself look foolish.....:helpless:

Pjazz
11-06-10, 10:08 PM
Ok I read through the FTC documents and the Judges rulings from the FTC site. From what I get from it Zmax had to tone down it's advertising.They show independent testing of there product, but didn't show the bad side of the test results. They had infomercials claiming up to a 23 percent gas mileage increases. Zmax web site has their version on the FTC case and states their toned down claims of there product. Only stating a gas mileage increase instead of numbers. I think they also had to stop saying it decreases engine wear and instead say it decreases wear on vital engine parts.

It's hard reading those court documents, but it looks like they had to pay back customers who complained. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0023256/0023256.htm I think I'll stick to regular oil changes.

M.A.C
11-06-10, 10:48 PM
I just saw this Carroll Shelby/zMax commercial (http://www.zmax.com/why_use_zmax_/testimonials/). I think I might give zMax a try--It's only $30.

dkozloski
11-06-10, 11:46 PM
I just saw this Carroll Shelby/zMax commercial (http://www.zmax.com/why_use_zmax_/testimonials/). I think I might give zMax a try--It's only $30.

If you send me the $30 I'll pray for you and I guarantee at least equal results.

BaTu
11-07-10, 12:34 PM
Ok I read through the FTC documents and the Judges rulings from the FTC site. From what I get from it Zmax had to tone down it's advertising.They show independent testing of there product, but didn't show the bad side of the test results. They had infomercials claiming up to a 23 percent gas mileage increases. Zmax web site has their version on the FTC case and states their toned down claims of there product. Only stating a gas mileage increase instead of numbers. I think they also had to stop saying it decreases engine wear and instead say it decreases wear on vital engine parts.

It's hard reading those court documents, but it looks like they had to pay back customers who complained. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0023256/0023256.htm I think I'll stick to regular oil changes.

Ahh, OK, so basically what the disposition of the action was.....

The FTC found that Zmax was making false claims and was ordered to stop lying about what their "colored mineral oil" would do.

Then, for those consumers who bought Zmax, the company was ordered to make restitution by returning money to the ones that were lied to.

I see.... ya think that's what Ed considered Zmaxs vindication? Could that even be possible???? (or was he just trying to "puff-up" and hope he could be a big enough blowhard that it would all gloss over....)

I guess be live in a Buyer Beware world and the FTC isn't going to stop products like this (nor would I want them to) or else J.C.Whitney wouldn't have been able to sell "Motor Medic" pills for the past 75yrs :D

racetek27
11-07-10, 04:34 PM
Ok I read through the FTC documents and the Judges rulings from the FTC site. From what I get from it Zmax had to tone down it's advertising.They show independent testing of there product, but didn't show the bad side of the test results. They had infomercials claiming up to a 23 percent gas mileage increases. Zmax web site has their version on the FTC case and states their toned down claims of there product. Only stating a gas mileage increase instead of numbers. I think they also had to stop saying it decreases engine wear and instead say it decreases wear on vital engine parts.

It's hard reading those court documents, but it looks like they had to pay back customers who complained. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0023256/0023256.htm I think I'll stick to regular oil changes.

zMax did conduct the necessary ASTM/SAE Testing to keep all of their performance claims. The only adjustment was not to carry a percent number with the Fuel Mileage Claim. Besides that, there were no toned down claims. There were no bad tests performed by zMax and if so, would have not allowed zMax to continue keeping their claims.

zMax conducted many Sequence VIII engine tests with various automotive motor oils and did not increase bearing wear in any test. The word Vital is used as all engine parts are considered to be vital, thus the statement Reduces Wear On Vital Engine Parts is used. Several of the claims included, Reduces Heat,Reduces Friction,Dissipates Engine Heat,Extends Engine Life which all support that zMax protects engine parts.

Products are not allowed to place a percentage number with a Fuel Mileage Claim of which zMax's outside marketing company they had hired, did in an infomercial. The 10 % number and marketing error was what the 1 million payout was for. Fixed percentage numbers can't represent the average motorist due to the many variables involved.

Thanks

racetek27
11-07-10, 04:45 PM
Ahh, OK, so basically what the disposition of the action was.....

The FTC found that Zmax was making false claims and was ordered to stop lying about what their "colored mineral oil" would do.

Then, for those consumers who bought Zmax, the company was ordered to make restitution by returning money to the ones that were lied to.

I see.... ya think that's what Ed considered Zmaxs vindication? Could that even be possible???? (or was he just trying to "puff-up" and hope he could be a big enough blowhard that it would all gloss over....)

I guess be live in a Buyer Beware world and the FTC isn't going to stop products like this (nor would I want them to) or else J.C.Whitney wouldn't have been able to sell "Motor Medic" pills for the past 75yrs :D

To the members, I'll be posting ASTM/SAE Test information including the Cadillac PI so the members can read the information. Many of the tests performed are in running engines.

As an example of one series of tests conducted, the SAE J1321 Fuel Economy test was performed multiple times to provide proof that zMax improves gas mileage. This test procedure is the most accurate way to measure fuel Economy because the Fuel supply for both test A ( without zMax ) and test B ( with zMax ) is weighed by use of a calibrated Gram Weight Scale ( Both the test tank and Fuel ).


Thanks

racetek27
11-07-10, 05:42 PM
The big clinker in the theory of the oil additive, or metal conditioner, or whatever current buzzword you're using is that before it can even come into play there has a be a failure of the primary lubrication element, the motor oil. As long as the motor oil does its job the additive is in no position to do anything. There is no metal to metal contact to fear. With the adoption of roller cam followers in nearly all modern engines, the last high pressure, sliding contact point in the engine, was eliminated. The amount of high pressure additive was greatly reduced in motor oils because it was no longer needed and it was a polluting chemical as well. Zmax now adresses a problem that no longer exists. There are millions of cars world-wide that go hundreds of thousands of trouble free miles without ever being within miles of Zmax because the original motor oils are more than sufficient for the job. At this point it makes very little difference if Zmax works or not because it could be salad oil and you'd never be able to tell the difference by the results observed.

I agree with you that Motor Oils have come a long way and do a nice job in the engine BUT you must look at TWO zones in the engine where Motor oil must function.

The lower zone of an engine is working in comfortable temperature ranges where oil works fine on moving surfaces and we haven't had wear problems in years with current designs and oils.

zMax addressed a problem back in 1938 and it still exists today which is heat in the Combustion Chamber Region. This is where failure of the primary lubrication element, the motor oil has a problem. The problem is how to deal with heat in the combustion chamber to insure proper valve and piston/ring sealing in order to allow the cylinder to produce it's Design Peak Pressure.

Metal surfaces do contain ripped machine edges that glow and produce fire like temperatures during operation on machined surfaces. These hot edges can Oxidize lubricants moving across the tops of their surfaces and do exactly that, especially in the Combustion Chamber Region where temperatures give motor oil problems. When the motor oil oxidizes and breaks down between the piston/rings and cylinder wall, metal to metal ( Work Surface Welding ) contact does occur and wear develops.

The developer of zMax named Joe Lencki determined that the problem was not the motor oil but the surface that the motor oil was moving across. His product soaks into the metal sub-surface and weeps out, cooling the raised edges of those hot tooling egdes. zMax reduces the " Excess Frictional Heat " by lubricating and dissipating heat both on and beneath the metal working surfaces.

zMax is all about reducing the excess frictional heat on working surfaces to help oils and fuels do the job they were designed for.

Twelve degrees ATDC on the power cycle is where the combustion pressure reaches around 700 PSI ( Gas) and up to 3000 PSI (Diesel ). This heat transfers ( Several thousand Degrees at ignition ) into the Piston/Rings and through motor oil and into the Cylinder bore. This is where the oil boundry film can oxidize and leaves deposits and combustion leakage ( Blow-by ) is created.

zMax's ability to keep working surfaces better lubricated and cooler helps keep the motor oil film 'Sealing " between the Piston/Ring-Cylinder Wall as well as keeps Valve/Guide clearances dimensionally correct and properly sealing so the correct design combustion pressure is obtained in which the fuel/air mixture is burned as designed.

Proper Combustion sealing is the key to maintaining Horsepower/Torque,Fuel Mileage,Low Emissions,etc as well as helping the oil maintain it's integrity, Lower Acid number,etc.

If you research our running SAE J1321 Fuel Mileage testing and Engine Lab Sequence VIII Testing with many different Motor Oil's, zMax improved performance in every run. All zMax knows is metal and it's performance is not hinged to any engine type or Motor Oil used.

Engines can and do run into the hundreds of thousands of miles, but be rest assured that they have had their performance baseline dramatically reduced as drive time increased.

Thanks

dkozloski
11-07-10, 07:31 PM
I agree with you that Motor Oils have come a long way and do a nice job in the engine BUT you must look at TWO zones in the engine where Motor oil must function.

The lower zone of an engine is working in comfortable temperature ranges where oil works fine on moving surfaces and we haven't had wear problems in years with current designs and oils.

zMax addressed a problem back in 1938 and it still exists today which is heat in the Combustion Chamber Region. This is where failure of the primary lubrication element, the motor oil has a problem. The problem is how to deal with heat in the combustion chamber to insure proper valve and piston/ring sealing in order to allow the cylinder to produce it's Design Peak Pressure.

Metal surfaces do contain ripped machine edges that glow and produce fire like temperatures during operation on machined surfaces. These hot edges can Oxidize lubricants moving across the tops of their surfaces and do exactly that, especially in the Combustion Chamber Region where temperatures give motor oil problems. When the motor oil oxidizes and breaks down between the piston/rings and cylinder wall, metal to metal ( Work Surface Welding ) contact does occur and wear develops.

The developer of zMax named Joe Lencki determined that the problem was not the motor oil but the surface that the motor oil was moving across. His product soaks into the metal sub-surface and weeps out, cooling the raised edges of those hot tooling egdes. zMax reduces the " Excess Frictional Heat " by lubricating and dissipating heat both on and beneath the metal working surfaces.

zMax is all about reducing the excess frictional heat on working surfaces to help oils and fuels do the job they were designed for.

Twelve degrees ATDC on the power cycle is where the combustion pressure reaches around 700 PSI ( Gas) and up to 3000 PSI (Diesel ). This heat transfers ( Several thousand Degrees at ignition ) into the Piston/Rings and through motor oil and into the Cylinder bore. This is where the oil boundry film can oxidize and leaves deposits and combustion leakage ( Blow-by ) is created.

zMax's ability to keep working surfaces better lubricated and cooler helps keep the motor oil film 'Sealing " between the Piston/Ring-Cylinder Wall as well as keeps Valve/Guide clearances dimensionally correct and properly sealing so the correct design combustion pressure is obtained in which the fuel/air mixture is burned as designed.

Proper Combustion sealing is the key to maintaining Horsepower/Torque,Fuel Mileage,Low Emissions,etc as well as helping the oil maintain it's integrity, Lower Acid number,etc.

If you research our running SAE J1321 Fuel Mileage testing and Engine Lab Sequence VIII Testing with many different Motor Oil's, zMax improved performance in every run. All zMax knows is metal and it's performance is not hinged to any engine type or Motor Oil used.

Engines can and do run into the hundreds of thousands of miles, but be rest assured that they have had their performance baseline dramatically reduced as drive time increased.

Thanks

According to one of the GM Powertrain Northstar engineers that used to frequent this forum the sealing problem was not between the rings and the cylinder walls but was between the piston rings and the piston lands. The ring/cylinder wall problem was addressed years ago with an improved cylinder honing process that reduced cylinder wall wear nearly to zero. Inspect a two hundred thousand mile NorthStar and you'll find a zero ring ridge. Cylinder wall wear is virtually extinct in the Northstar engine. The ring to piston sealing problem is addressed by driving the car like you stole it. ZMax addresses a problem that no longer exists in the NorthStar world. It would serve you well to peruse the forum's technical archives.

SlickCityStan
11-07-10, 07:41 PM
I will not be convinced until I see test results from an independent test facility and any documentation from an auto maker will have to come from the auto maker.

malatu
11-07-10, 08:03 PM
Wow, ........ I had a similar experience with sales rep claiming an oil additive for our hvac compressors (large industrial hvac compressors and chillers) would make these compressors and a/c chillers much more energy efficient, thus reducing our energy costs. The sales rep's rhetoric convincing! Lots of claims, examples, and research, of sorts. (The retoric by Ed is scarily similar to what I listened to six years ago listening to the sales rep). Not convinced, I needed to hear the underlying science that would explain the technology, I scheduled a meeting mechanical engineer and a very educated hvac technician and prompted all folk involved that I wanted to discuss the worthiness of this product based on the science that may or may not have supported any beneficial claims. As a result of the meeting, I ended any relationship with the sales rep. The science just didn't support any claims.

I think Ed really believes in his product as did the sales rep selling the oil additive for hvac compressors. .... I'm ok with that. Though, I'm not "buying into" any claims of the product. I'll use the right oil and change regularly. I drove my last GM six banger for 214,000 miles ... it burned 1/2 quart of oil every 5000 miles when I sold it.

Pjazz
11-07-10, 08:12 PM
Could some body close this thread. It's turned into an infomercial.

malatu
11-07-10, 08:21 PM
I thought it was quite an enjoyable read myself ... though I agree ... it's running out of steam.

M.A.C
11-07-10, 08:23 PM
Could some body close this thread. It's turned into an infomercial.
No! Don't close this thread.

If anyone is annoyed by this thread then don't come in here.

BaTu
11-07-10, 08:35 PM
Could some body close this thread. It's turned into an infomercial.

I second that.... (before "slippery Ed" returns with more of his BS)



I thought it was quite an enjoyable read myself ... though I agree ... it's running out of steam.


I have to confess, I've have alot of fun here with Ed :D But he obviously has No Shame (I'd bet money he's one of those "It ain't Cheating less ya get caught" kinda guys at the race track...) and by shear bombardment will overwhelm it as a commercial for his Scam Snake Oil :(

Pull the plug now cause you know, they'll have to eventually to stop all the free advertising.....

airportwv
11-07-10, 09:29 PM
i have some pill u put in your gas tank an get 75 mpg you bet

M.A.C
11-08-10, 12:47 AM
I just love it when the conversation in threads are not to the liking of a few it's suddenly time to close it. This thread will eventually die. Accordingly, it shouldn't be closed simply because a few people don't like the direction of the conversation. I see this close the thread stuff way too much. Anyone who doesn't like the conversation can simply refrain from coming in here. Apparently those with the most to say have talked themselves out and now they want the thread closed. :bigroll:

RippyPartsDept
11-08-10, 01:12 AM
what i found funny was how Ed says that BITOG is shilling for the major oil companies (not the oil additive companies) so you can trust their info!

:histeric:

racetek27
11-08-10, 09:56 AM
According to one of the GM Powertrain Northstar engineers that used to frequent this forum the sealing problem was not between the rings and the cylinder walls but was between the piston rings and the piston lands. The ring/cylinder wall problem was addressed years ago with an improved cylinder honing process that reduced cylinder wall wear nearly to zero. Inspect a two hundred thousand mile NorthStar and you'll find a zero ring ridge. Cylinder wall wear is virtually extinct in the Northstar engine. The ring to piston sealing problem is addressed by driving the car like you stole it. ZMax addresses a problem that no longer exists in the NorthStar world. It would serve you well to peruse the forum's technical archives.

Actually, a big part of the problem was that the piston was shortened for meeting CAFE requirements to achieve specific fuel economy numbers. The shortened skirt design contributed to the noise and other issues. There was actually some type of teflon or other material that was placed on the side of these piston skirts in order to help quiet down the noise issue.

Cylinder wall wear was a problem on a percentage of the cars but was induced by multiple issues. On the subject of driving the car as if it's stolen to keep the piston/rings sealing, the Cadillac brand has been dominated for years by our respected elderly age group. I don't think they are going to race the cars to keep the pistons/rings sealing the combustion chambers.

On the other side of the coin, Cadillac has come out with some great cars to go after the younger age consumer.

I'm sure GM may have tightened up the piston to wall clearance when they changed out the short skirt piston and reconfigured the clearance dimensions for the ring/grooves as well.

My explanation on a previous post of Cylinder Design Peak Pressure addresses a problem that has always existed in ANY piston engine design which is the heat in the combustion chamber region and it's effect on the SEALING properties in order to achieve cylinder design peak pressures.

This has nothing to do with a Northstar problem as it addresses combustion principals in any engine design.

Maintaining the critical oil SEAL between the piston/rings and cylinder wall depends in a big capacity, on the oil maintaining its boundry of lubricity to seal the combustion pressure 12 Degrees ATDC on the power cycle. The oil oxidizing on the machined hot edges of the cylinder walls ( This applies to all machined surfaces ) allows leakage ( blow-by to develop ) and engine performance suffurs.

An engine is a mechanical harness, in which it's horsepower is determined by the kind and amount of fuel and air it burns most efficiently. The zMax product has successfully helped seal combustion chamber sealing in any design engine by helping the oil film maintain it's seal between the critical piston/ring and cylinder wall and in better Valve/Seat sealing.

Many independent companies have proven this for years and the performance improvement numbers are very consistent.

Thanks

racetek27
11-08-10, 10:07 AM
I second that.... (before "slippery Ed" returns with more of his BS)





I have to confess, I've have alot of fun here with Ed :D But he obviously has No Shame (I'd bet money he's one of those "It ain't Cheating less ya get caught" kinda guys at the race track...) and by shear bombardment will overwhelm it as a commercial for his Scam Snake Oil :(

Pull the plug now cause you know, they'll have to eventually to stop all the free advertising.....

I'll be posting some very informative technical material on performance. Your posts on the other hand, have not had one single piece of information that you can support and you just keep on jibber jabbering senseless .

Even after the technical information is posted, I'm certain you still won't be able to comprehend it and even if you can, will turn your head as if it doesn't exist as thats your purpose.

That's ok as the proof is in the performance.

They'll be some honest members who understand it and will post positive feedback on the info.

Thanks

racetek27
11-08-10, 10:23 AM
I thought it was quite an enjoyable read myself ... though I agree ... it's running out of steam.

Don't worry malatu, we'll keep this thing from turning into a full fledged soap opera ......... I'll be posting field and lab test info as well as the full GM Northstar PI.

In addition to correcting the false posts on the zMax/FTC case, my full intent is to discuss combustion efficiency, which is the single most important factor for engines to maintain their performance baseline and post great technical data of which I'm sure once it's on, someone would be hard pressed to find another product that can match it being there's 70 years of field/lab testing.

Thanks

RippyPartsDept
11-08-10, 10:57 AM
What the F is the PI number??

[edit: i didn't notice the PI up above... ooops... sorry for yelling]

dkozloski
11-08-10, 01:27 PM
Don't worry malatu, we'll keep this thing from turning into a full fledged soap opera ......... I'll be posting field and lab test info as well as the full GM Northstar PI.

In addition to correcting the false posts on the zMax/FTC case, my full intent is to discuss combustion efficiency, which is the single most important factor for engines to maintain their performance baseline and post great technical data of which I'm sure once it's on, someone would be hard pressed to find another product that can match it being there's 70 years of field/lab testing.

Thanks

You might began a proper education on the Cadillac NorthStar engine by taking advantage of the forum technical archives. http://www.cadillacforums.com/cadillac-tech.html

RippyPartsDept
11-08-10, 01:51 PM
You might began a proper education on the Cadillac NorthStar engine by taking advantage of the forum technical archives. http://www.cadillacforums.com/cadillac-tech.html

i believe that was already suggested...

RippyPartsDept
11-08-10, 01:57 PM
and by the way I've done a couple searches in the GM service information system (using a couple different N* vehicles) and have yet to find one mention of the term 'zmax'

dkozloski
11-08-10, 03:20 PM
i believe that was already suggested...

I repeated the suggestion and this time I included a link for his benefit.

American car manufacturers have their backs against the wall trying to comply with new CAFE standards and are doing some pretty esoteric stuff. If the claims of ZMax were valid the car manufacturers would be falling all over each other trying to incorporate it in their fuel saving systems. Since they are not, it's pretty clear that ZMax is just another instance of a "duck butter" product that's suppose to cure everything including genital warts. There were claims of lubricant additives that soaked into the metal and did magical tricks clear back in the 1920s. A company called Pyroil claimed to have poured some of their products into an airplane and after a suitable period of time drained all the oil out and then flew the plane around and around Roosevelt Field on Long Island, New York. We've all seen the TV ads of engines running with a garden hose stuck in the oil filler and water spraying around. Flim-flam men resurrect this stuff on a regular basis. STP had Andy Granatelli shilling for them; ZMax has Caroll Shelby. Mario Andretti sells Rain-X. Celebrities endorse all kinds of stuff including sex enhancements and dog food. It's what makes the world go around. If it sounds too good to be true, the odds are very high it's a scam but it probably won't blow up in your face and kill you.

SlickCityStan
11-08-10, 03:29 PM
and by the way I've done a couple searches in the GM service information system (using a couple different N* vehicles) and have yet to find one mention of the term 'zmax'

... What is the PI number??

you've mentioned it a bunch of times and said that you would post it, but haven't....

now is the time to PUT UP or SHUT UP... what's the number? simple as that...Yo, "rip" this is what racetek gave as the info on the GM PI,"
Subject: Knocking Noises Or Excessive Oil Consumption-keywords
carbon cold piston valve zmax # PIP3951- ( 10/19/2006 ) ." Please let us know if this is genuine or not.

RippyPartsDept
11-08-10, 05:32 PM
I can't get it to come up... but they do delete these sometimes...

if it's not there currently then i would assume it's not currently recommended

racetek27
11-08-10, 05:49 PM
I repeated the suggestion and this time I included a link for his benefit.

American car manufacturers have their backs against the wall trying to comply with new CAFE standards and are doing some pretty esoteric stuff. If the claims of ZMax were valid the car manufacturers would be falling all over each other trying to incorporate it in their fuel saving systems. Since they are not, it's pretty clear that ZMax is just another instance of a "duck butter" product that's suppose to cure everything including genital warts. There were claims of lubricant additives that soaked into the metal and did magical tricks clear back in the 1920s. A company called Pyroil claimed to have poured some of their products into an airplane and after a suitable period of time drained all the oil out and then flew the plane around and around Roosevelt Field on Long Island, New York. We've all seen the TV ads of engines running with a garden hose stuck in the oil filler and water spraying around. Flim-flam men resurrect this stuff on a regular basis. STP had Andy Granatelli shilling for them; ZMax has Caroll Shelby. Mario Andretti sells Rain-X. Celebrities endorse all kinds of stuff including sex enhancements and dog food. It's what makes the world go around. If it sounds too good to be true, the odds are very high it's a scam but it probably won't blow up in your face and kill you.

Manufacturers and Engineers like to do their projects without outside intervention.

It's called the NIH ( not invented here ) thought process and Manufacturers are not in the business of endorsing products.

zMax 's history under the AvBlend brand name is unique from a performance point and definitely is well beyond what any other product has tried to show through Carnival Demonstrations as you mentioned with Pyroil.

I agree with you that all these hype ancedotal demonstrations are plentiful in the additive world.

As a technician, please thoroughly read the ASTM/SAE testinfo along with correlated Field Performance Testing . As technicians, all of us do recognize the value in controlled ASTM/SAE Test protocols and theres very few products that prove their performance under ASTM/SAE Test guidelines.

Pretty much, it's ASTM Bench Tests for EP Additives that take the whole combustion process out of the equasion.

Put zMax 's endorsers aside, study their data when posted !

Thanks

RippyPartsDept
11-08-10, 06:57 PM
OK, so the PIP3951 (docid# 1868013) looks legit and I don't doubt that it is
.
.
.
But
.
.
.
That document is no longer valid in GM's Service Information system - it just doesn't come up.

When I enter the doc id into the search it comes back with:

You have entered an invalid document ID or the requested document has been removed from the system.
Please enter a valid document ID.

As I mentioned earlier GM removes these documents from time to time when they no longer are needed or for other reasons.

I have no clue as to why it was removed... but since it was removed it obviously is no longer a recommended service procedure.
At one point in time it WAS suggested (in the PI):

For vehicles NOT covered under the new vehicle warranty, before attempting other repairs, a product called zMax may be of benefit in improving these conditions.

If I had to guess they removed the PI because dealers were probably giving feedback like "WTF??" and telling GM about cures for cold carbon rap and oil consumption that require no additives, such as the WOT procedure in our technical archive (http://www.cadillacforums.com/cadillac-tech.html) (and summarized by others above)

I don't think anyone here is saying that this stuff will harm your engine.

In my opinion the problem started when their marketing jumped the fence with using percentages.
Now when there's no percentage claims it could be a minimal or non-significant increase and their marketing claims would still be true.
It could also be possible that there are significant improvements, however as others have said (and I agree) zMax would have been bought by a large auto manufacturer for a huge sum of $$$ if that was the case.


To summarize, the PI released by GM was removed from the Service Information system (for unknown reasons) but GM definitely does not currently recommend zMax.
And they actually released a bulletin #05-00-89-072B titled Fuel and Oil Additives - Facts and Myths/Maximizing Fuel Economy (http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=69965)

within that document is a link to the FTC website concerning this issue (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut10.shtm) (not the zMax case specifically but fuel economy and additives/enhancements)

So bottom line, I'm pretty sure GM does not condone the use of zMax (for whatever reasons)

Submariner409
11-08-10, 08:16 PM
rippy, Get out of this circus. As a legit GM parts man this is only going to drag you into a Ringling Brothers & Barnum & Bailey midway charade.

..........somebody Google the old claims of Wynn's Friction Proofing (40's, 50's, 60's) and ask yourself if the same hype exists here.............

RippyPartsDept
11-08-10, 08:21 PM
thanks for the advice Sub... i'll take it...

EChas3
11-08-10, 08:44 PM
My wife bought a used Olds '88 with the venerable 3800 V6. The used car dealer was a multiple-generation family business that was well respected in her home town. It came with a Winn's Oil guarantee and a case of additives. We didn't even need to really add their stuff to get the 100,000 mile mechanical coverage.

Winn's replaced the steering rack to the tune of $750 when it started to be stiff when cold; a known issue with those cars.

Snake oil is not necessarily worthless. Does zMax carry a warranty?

M.A.C
11-08-10, 09:38 PM
rippy, Get out of this circus. As a legit GM parts man this is only going to drag you into a Ringling Brothers & Barnum & Bailey midway charade.

..........somebody Google the old claims of Wynn's Friction Proofing (40's, 50's, 60's) and ask yourself if the same hype exists here.............

Here is a link to the Stipulated Final Order (http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/zmaxfin.html) involving the FTC litigation and mutual settlement of the issues pertaining to the litigation against Defendants, Speedway Motors, Inc. and Oil-Chem Research Corp., the maker of zMax.

Below is a quotation from a letter that looks to be from the Defendants attorneys dated December 23, 2002 (http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/zmaxrept.html), advising the FTC of what claims Defendants intend to make in the future pursuant to the "conduct provisions" of the Order:


Set forth below are the claims Oil-Chem intends to make in the advertising and promotion of zMAX. As substantiation for each claim, Oil-Chem refers to confidential, Bates-stamped documents produced under seal during the litigation of this action. Oil-Chem and SMI request that the Commission continue to preserve the confidentiality of these documents pursuant to the Protective Order executed by the parties during the litigation.

1. zMAX soaks into metal.
Substantiation: DX 35, 36
2. zMAX reduces friction.
Substantiation: DX 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 39, 40, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
3. zMAX increases horsepower.
Substantiation: DX 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
4. zMAX dissipates engine heat.
Substantiation: DX 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 35, 36, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
5. zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
Substantiation: DX 15, 16, 18, 19, 26, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
6. zMAX helps to maintaing gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
Substantiation: DX 15, 16, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
7. zMAX helps to reduce wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skits, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
Substantiation: DX 15, 16, 28, 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
8. zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
Substantiation: DX 15, 16, 28, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53

Despite the settlement, it looks as though Defendants are still able to advertise ostensibly as they did before the litigation. The list (1-8) above shows the claims Defendants advised the FTC it intended to make pursuant to the terms of Parts I and II of the Stipulated Final Order. Certainly, I would think the FTC would be upset about such claims and thus would try to stop Defendants from making same if they have no evidence to back them up. However, apparently the FTC is not upset because there is no pending action against Defendants.

The terms of Part I of the Order states:


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, directly or through any corporation, partnership, subsidiary, division, or other device, and their officers, agents, servants, and employees, and all other persons or entities in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order, by personal service or otherwise, in connection with the manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion, offering for sale, sale or distribution of zMAX, or any other product for use in any motor vehicle, in or affecting commerce, shall not make any representation, in any manner, expressly or by implication, that such product:

1. increases gas mileage;
2. increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10%, or by any other percentage, miles-per-gallon, dollar, or other figure;
3. reduces engine wear;
4. reduces or eliminates engine wear at startup;
5. reduces engine corrosion;
6. extends engine life; or
7. reduces emissions,

unless at the time the representation is made, Defendants possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence, that substantiates the representation.

Notice above that Defendants are not allowed to make the claims in the list (1-7) unless they “possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence, that substantiates the representation.” This is in light of the fact that Defendants continue to this day to claim that zMax:

1. "molecules soak into metal where they disperse carbon deposits";
2. "A clean engine, free of carbon and other deposits, gives your vehicle increased gas mileage and improved horsepower"; and
3. "restores power and extends engine life."

Obviously, if any of the above claims were fraudulent, then I would suspect the FTC would haul Defendants back into court and again assert that they are making false claims and are thus violating the provisions of the Final Stipulated Order. Well, I don’t see it happening so far. Accordingly, I take it that Defendants are complying with the Stipulated Final Order despite the fact they are continuing to make the above (apparently, unbelievable to some) claims.

So what this boils down to is that if any of Defendants/zMax’s critics have any evidence that Defendants are making one or more false claims regarding zMax, I would strongly suggest you file a complaint with the FTC. Instead of bashing this product ad nauseam, I suggest you gather all your evidence and file a complaint. Then again, the FTC does not need anyone to file a complaint if it thought zMax’s claims violate the Stipulated Final Order.

AJxtcman
11-08-10, 11:39 PM
WOT runs can cause the head gaskets to fail!!!!

Look up Terra-Clean engine Decarbonizer. not the other terra clean

racetek27
11-09-10, 11:04 AM
Here is a link to the Stipulated Final Order (http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/zmaxfin.html) involving the FTC litigation and mutual settlement of the issues pertaining to the litigation against Defendants, Speedway Motors, Inc. and Oil-Chem Research Corp., the maker of zMax.

Below is a quotation from a letter that looks to be from the Defendants attorneys dated December 23, 2002 (http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/zmaxrept.html), advising the FTC of what claims Defendants intend to make in the future pursuant to the "conduct provisions" of the Order:



Despite the settlement, it looks as though Defendants are still able to advertise ostensibly as they did before the litigation. The list (1-8) above shows the claims Defendants advised the FTC it intended to make pursuant to the terms of Parts I and II of the Stipulated Final Order. Certainly, I would think the FTC would be upset about such claims and thus would try to stop Defendants from making same if they have no evidence to back them up. However, apparently the FTC is not upset because there is no pending action against Defendants.

The terms of Part I of the Order states:



Notice above that Defendants are not allowed to make the claims in the list (1-7) unless they “possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence, that substantiates the representation.” This is in light of the fact that Defendants continue to this day to claim that zMax:

1. "molecules soak into metal where they disperse carbon deposits";
2. "A clean engine, free of carbon and other deposits, gives your vehicle increased gas mileage and improved horsepower"; and
3. "restores power and extends engine life."

Obviously, if any of the above claims were fraudulent, then I would suspect the FTC would haul Defendants back into court and again assert that they are making false claims and are thus violating the provisions of the Final Stipulated Order. Well, I don’t see it happening so far. Accordingly, I take it that Defendants are complying with the Stipulated Final Order despite the fact they are continuing to make the above (apparently, unbelievable to some) claims.

So what this boils down to is that if any of Defendants/zMax’s critics have any evidence that Defendants are making one or more false claims regarding zMax, I would strongly suggest you file a complaint with the FTC. Instead of bashing this product ad nauseam, I suggest you gather all your evidence and file a complaint. Then again, the FTC does not need anyone to file a complaint if it thought zMax’s claims violate the Stipulated Final Order.

When read through all the legal wording, the settlement says that " unless they possess " referring to our ASTM/SAE Testing of which Oil Chem does possess. The wording is easy to get lost in.

zMax can legally state in it's claims that it :

Soaks into Metal

Reduces friction

Increases horsepower

Dissipates engine heat

Helps improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars and helps maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars.

Helps reduce engine wear on vital engine parts.

Helps extend engine life

The list of claims that were posted with the Bates numbers support the approved claims that are listed in this post.

Thanks

Black6spdZ
12-14-10, 11:51 PM
I ran across this thread after a google search of "zmax scam". I've read every page and signed up just to post this. Ed, you say that according to SAE J357 OCT99 zmax is NOT an additive. If that was the case the host oil would NOT be necessary. Show me a test that fills the crankcase with this magic fluid and what happens afterwards.

550HP STSV
12-15-10, 03:10 PM
fraud