Skip to main content

Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Glad I can serve this great country! Thank you for your service as well!

What exactly does Zmax do when added to fuel? Is it a cleaner/UCL, or a cleaner only? How often is it added?

It was the oil additive I think they were talking about on Bitog. I can't get onto the site now. I think in the oil it is a friction reducer and AW additive. Not so much a cleaner? I have to read up on it again. Thanks!

AD
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
quote:
Originally posted by zddp77:
Absolute snake oil dont waste your money.... beware of posters on that other site who have hidden agenda's.


Swill,....er, Scam.....er, Shill.....er, synlube isn't being pushed there. So they came here to try.



Think again,Trajan.......regarding your last remark about a certain......non-petroleum lubricant used by this truck.


http://www.prweb.com/releases/...uck/prweb4733104.htm

http://www.bremach.it/
So to get this stright, you buy a bottle of additive that costs maybe 15 bucks and it coats all the metal parts it comes in contact with and makes them close to wear proof. Why don't engine or car makers do that from the get go? Don't they provide those wonderfull 100k powertrain warrenties? Couldn't they buy tanker trucks of this stuff and apply it at the factory and further reduce their warrenty exposure? just wondering.....
quote:
Originally posted by rgf12:
So to get this stright, you buy a bottle of additive that costs maybe 15 bucks and it coats all the metal parts it comes in contact with and makes them close to wear proof. Why don't engine or car makers do that from the get go? Don't they provide those wonderfull 100k powertrain warrenties? Couldn't they buy tanker trucks of this stuff and apply it at the factory and further reduce their warrenty exposure? just wondering.....


Why should they! When have they! Will they ever! Do they need to? Would you buy....tanker trucks of this stuff,or some other 'proprietary' additive if you were near broke like they were? NO!

The automakers want you buy their new cars........not tanker trucks of a chlorine based additive(chlorine ion). The automakers only buy lubricanst that are off the shelf and complete. They do not endorse, nor will they ever endorse supplemental additives..........it's even in the owners manuals.
It doesn't have chlorine. It's the same stuff that's used in aircraft engines. It's called Avblend. Which is FFA approved.

It used by many pilots at the local airport near me. They swear by it.

Avblend and Zmax are the same from all that I've read.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...umber=2044492&page=4

Cadillac recommends it.

Unlike scamlube, it has verified 3rd party testing. Sure, some will bring up the old FTC ruling, but they don't really read it, and they can't explain why it's still being sold.

And again, unlike scam....synlube, it's makers and users don't attack you if you question it.

And ask yourself one question, Do you really want to take the word of one who thinks sinlube is the greatest oil ever?
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
quote:
Originally posted by zddp77:
Absolute snake oil dont waste your money.... beware of posters on that other site who have hidden agenda's.


Swill,....er, Scam.....er, Shill.....er, synlube isn't being pushed there. So they came here to try.



Think again,Trajan.......regarding your last remark about a certain......non-petroleum lubricant used by this truck.


http://www.prweb.com/releases/...uck/prweb4733104.htm

http://www.bremach.it/


Really? Don't see anything that says it does. I'd ask that you prove it, but you've yet to prove much of anything.
Last edited by trajan
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
Originally posted by rgf12:
So to get this stright, you buy a bottle of additive that costs maybe 15 bucks and it coats all the metal parts it comes in contact with and makes them close to wear proof. Why don't engine or car makers do that from the get go? Don't they provide those wonderfull 100k powertrain warrenties? Couldn't they buy tanker trucks of this stuff and apply it at the factory and further reduce their warrenty exposure? just wondering.....


Why should they! When have they! Will they ever! Do they need to? Would you buy....tanker trucks of this stuff,or some other 'proprietary' additive if you were near broke like they were? NO!

The automakers want you buy their new cars........not tanker trucks of a chlorine based additive(chlorine ion). The automakers only buy lubricanst that are off the shelf and complete. They do not endorse, nor will they ever endorse supplemental additives..........it's even in the owners manuals.


And yet, TSBs will say, for example, that if you don't use top tier fuel, you should run, say, Techron.
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
It doesn't have chlorine. It's the same stuff that's used in aircraft engines. It's called Avblend. Which is FFA approved.

It used by many pilots at the local airport near me. They swear by it.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...umber=2044492&page=4

Cadillac recommends it.

Unlike scamlube, it has verified 3rd party testing. Sure, some will bring up the old FTC ruling, but they don't really read it, and they can't explain why it's still being sold.

And again, unlike scam....synlube, it's makers and users don't attack you if you question it.

And ask yourself one question, Do you really want to take the word of one who thinks sinlube is the greatest oil ever?


I saw Kirk taking a poke, figured I'd ask. I've been reading a lot about it, and it seems a respected guy at Bitog is trying to keep the product alive and generate interest. It might be good, sure seems there is a lot of interest in the stuff.

It isn't cheap so if it doesn't live up to the expectations it will fall hard and be driven off the sites like some of the other garbage plugged on these sites.

AD
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
It doesn't have chlorine. It's the same stuff that's used in aircraft engines. It's called Avblend. Which is FFA approved.

It used by many pilots at the local airport near me. They swear by it.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...umber=2044492&page=4

Cadillac recommends it.

Unlike scamlube, it has verified 3rd party testing. Sure, some will bring up the old FTC ruling, but they don't really read it, and they can't explain why it's still being sold.

And again, unlike scam....synlube, it's makers and users don't attack you if you question it.

And ask yourself one question, Do you really want to take the word of one who thinks sinlube is the greatest oil ever?


I saw Kirk taking a poke, figured I'd ask. I've been reading a lot about it, and it seems a respected guy at Bitog is trying to keep the product alive and generate interest. It might be good, sure seems there is a lot of interest in the stuff.

It isn't cheap so if it doesn't live up to the expectations it will fall hard and be driven off the sites like some of the other garbage plugged on these sites.

AD


Right now the two pack is on sale at AAP. While one bottle says fuel and the other engine, the only difference is the color. So you can use both in the oil.

I bought three boxes. Ehhhh, I eat out once/day every day. So that's six days I won't. No biggie.
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Zmax is a chlorine ion? I'll pass, chlorine is corrosive to metal, why add it to oil? That's if it contains chlorine, are you sure Kirk?

AD


My mistake Ad. I was thinking about the X-1R additive which does contain the ion.......yet it too............is endorsed by many. The x-1r techs claim it is not corrosive. Z-max claims to 'fill' in the microscopic pores in the metal substrate of bearing surfaces.

Over the years I have actually used both. None have ever quieted down a noisy used car engine the way moly does.

I did notice the x-1r many years ago improved an automatic transmission shifting issues in one of my cars. But in 10,000 miles....guess what?........flush the entire tranny and re-do all over again. Mad

SO,how much money do y'all plan on spending on all these additives that may or may not work for a short while......maybe. Roll Eyes

BTW.........JEEP NOW HAS 19K ON THE CLOCK,AND THE MUSTANG 33K. S-M-O-O-T-H SAILING WITH MY LUBE OF CHOICE.......and my bearing pores are well lubed for life like the above lubricant 'claims' to do,but with repeated/costly applications,that I don't have to. Cool
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
It doesn't have chlorine. It's the same stuff that's used in aircraft engines. It's called Avblend. Which is FFA approved.

It used by many pilots at the local airport near me. They swear by it.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...umber=2044492&page=4

Cadillac recommends it.

Unlike scamlube, it has verified 3rd party testing. Sure, some will bring up the old FTC ruling, but they don't really read it, and they can't explain why it's still being sold.

And again, unlike scam....synlube, it's makers and users don't attack you if you question it.

And ask yourself one question, Do you really want to take the word of one who thinks sinlube is the greatest oil ever?


I saw Kirk taking a poke, figured I'd ask. I've been reading a lot about it, and it seems a respected guy at Bitog is trying to keep the product alive and generate interest. It might be good, sure seems there is a lot of interest in the stuff.

It isn't cheap so if it doesn't live up to the expectations it will fall hard and be driven off the sites like some of the other garbage plugged on these sites.

AD


Right now the two pack is on sale at AAP. While one bottle says fuel and the other engine, the only difference is the color. So you can use both in the oil.

I bought three boxes. Ehhhh, I eat out once/day every day. So that's six days I won't. No biggie.


Trajan.......your engine is already in need of a rebuild,so why not just stock up on your elixir and use it after the rebuild to hopefully avoid another rebuild.....at least in theory!

You do still have the oil burning bmw.......don't you? Eek
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Their claims about soaking into metal and then leaching out leaves a lot to the imagination. Maybe for a fuel system cleaning you'd want something to penetrate and disolve. In oil I'd rather have something like good ole moly to coat the metal. Lubro-moly MoS2 comes to mind, its got quite a following and is cheap!

AD



Well,according to this link info.....you may actually get a lot more bearing wear/corrosion using this additive.

This is a quote from the link below.

"According to the FTC, the CRC L38 test is a standard auto industry tool to measure the bearing corrosion protection properties of motor oils. In February/March 1997, an independent laboratory performed two CRC L38 tests of zMax for Speedway and Oil Chem. In those tests, motor oil treated with zMax produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion as motor oil alone. "


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


Use at your own risk is all I can say!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...=2044492#Post2044492

It would pay to read the pdfs in that link. The first is the final ruling of the FTC. Pay close attention to the wording on pages 3 & 4 and read pages 19, 20, and 21.

Sorry kirk. They're in compliance with the FTC.

Use it or not, I don't care either way. But anecdotes don't change the fact that they are in compliance.

The second pdf is interesting. One of the tests is a Modified CRC L-38 - capable of measuring bearing, cylinder, piston and valve guide wear; horsepower; piston deposits; and oil deterioration.

Now I'm not an expert in chemistry, or metallurgy. But I do know this. Zmax is still making the claims the FTC looked into, and no gov't agency is going after them to stop it.

So this stuff has more credibility than synlube. Then again, that isn't much of an accomplishment.

Gotta go buy some more......
Last edited by trajan
I should have said I'll pass on using it in the oil. It might have some value in the gas tank. I'll wait on UOA results to see if it has any negative impact on bearings, but I don't put much faith in a $25 oil test either.

There's always respected member testimony, and I don't see any shills pimping it yet so it passes that test!

AD
Yup.

For me, it's the information. Sure, a link gets posted about the FTC gunning for them. But what he failed to post was the ruling. Which I posted.

All the current info convinced me to try it. I put one in the gas, one in the oil. The rest will go into the oil every oci.

I'm not going to shill it. I'd rather people look at the data, like you're doing, and make up their own mind. Nor will I do any other synlibe antics.

Except to say that this isn't mixed in someone's basement located on some restricted acess DoE operated site.
What got these guys into trouble with the FTC about was using the test data in their advertising with the bit about accelerated bearing corrosion withheld. I have not seen anything about what bearing material was used in the tests. If this stuff is attacking a steel backed copper lead alloy bearing you dont want it. Even if the bearings in the tests are aluminum,its a bad sign that they are being attacked. As far as using it in the fuel tank goes,this may be the best application,but a very expensive one for what your getting. This stuff is plain mineral oil that has been sheered down until the molecules are small enough to penetrate porous metals. What protective benefit does this provide for the cost. Unless you need an aggressive wetting agent, you better pass on this one. And yes I have tried this one (before I found out about the deceptive adds) with no benefits at all.
I pulled this from the other place. Soley for information.

zMAX, a commercialized metal interface treatment, is a uniquely
processed mineral oil that has demonstrated its ability to improve fuel
economy, reduce engine deposits, and reduce wear through the
process of micro-lubrication. This micro-lubrication improves
performance by reducing engine friction, affording an attendant
improvement in fuel economy, and reducing engine wear and deposits
in critical high temperature sealing areas. Because this unique mineral
oil is able to both adsorb onto and absorb (penetrate) into the pores,
cracks, and fissures in the engine’s metallurgy, a new mechanism of
micro-lubrication is offered for improving the overall lubrication and
performance in automotive engines.

zMAX is derived from a highly refined mineral oil that undergoes a
proprietary process involving specific molecular rearrangement, and
has a kinematic viscosity of 11.5 cSt @ 40 °C and 3.00 cSt @ 100 °
C, an ASTM color of 30+, a Surface Tension of 27.75 dynes/cm @
20°C, and an API gravity of 36.6. A comparison of ASTM D2887
distillation results of zMAX versus the mineral oil used in its
production shows zMAX having a slightly higher boiling range than
mineral oil. Chemical analyses using gas chromatography and mass
spectroscopy conducted by Triton Analytics Corporation (Houston,
TX) revealed a greater concentration of linear hydrocarbon chains in
zMAX than in mineral oil.

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 OCT 99 Information Report Physical and Chemical Properties
of Engine Oils 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 two 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.

The following contains a compilation of essentially all testing
programs supporting those performance claims mentioned above.
They are organized into nine sections with a summary for each section
given below. The detailed individual reports can be made available
upon request.

Inactivity towards Additives - Since zMAX may be mistaken
as being an additive, laboratory testing to show its non-reactivity
when mixed with formulated engine oils would confirm zMAX does
not interact/interfere with those additive ingredients in engine oils.
The approach taken was to have selected laboratory tests conducted
back-to-back first on a fully formulated SAE 5w-30 SJ engine oil
without the zMAX followed those same tests on a blend of that oil
containing 10% by volume zMAX. Any significant changes in test
results would certainly demonstrate some reaction had occurred
whereas no change would show zMAX to be “inert” towards the
engine oil’s additives.

The laboratory tests selected were those that should reveal any
sensitivity to additive interactions or incompatibility. These first eight
tests were: ASTM D664 (Total Acid Number), ASTM D2896 (Total
Base Number), ASTM D4742 (Oxidation Stability of Gasoline
Automotive Engine Oils by Thin-Film Oxygen Uptake), ASTM
D130 (Copper Strip Corrosion), FTM Standard 791C Method 3470
(Homogeneity and Miscibility), General Motors 9099P (Engine Oil
Filterability Test), ASTM D892 (Foaming Characteristics of Engine
Oils), and ASTM D6082 (High Temperature Foaming Characteristics
of Engine Oils). The remaining three tests dealt with viscosity and
were selected to merely assess the degree of change since adding 10%
zMAX would slightly lower the overall viscosity. These remaining
tests were: ASTM D5133 (Low Temperature, Low Shear Rate,
Viscosity/Temperature Dependence of Lubricating Oil Using a
Temperature Scanning Technique), ASTM D445 (Kinematic
Viscosity), and ASTM D5293 (Apparent Viscosity of Engine Oil
Using the Cold Cranking Simulator).

The results of these first eight tests revealed zMAX did not generate
any significant changes that would have indicated any additive
interaction or some additive/base stock incompatibility. All of
the changes shown were either within the precision limits for the
individual tests or in some instances there was no change whatsoever.
However, the results obtained from the Homogeneity and Miscibility
(H&M) test warrant further comment. This test determines whether
fully formulated engine oils are homogeneous and completely
miscible with other engines oils they might encounter in service. The
presence of zMAX in the SAE 5w30 SJ oil when tested individually
against the six reference oils required in the H&M test did not result
in any indication of incompatibity being evidenced. The results of
the remaining three tests (i.e., Gelation Index through the Cold
Cranking Simulator) revealed minor changes reflecting the presence
of the lighter (i.e., lower viscosity) zMAX component that was fully
anticipated. In summary, the testing results revealed the absence of
any additive interactions with zMAX. Should zMAX have reacted
with the additive package or any of its individual ingredients, there
would in all likelihood have been significant changes in all of the tests
that were conducted.

Metal Penetration - Arch Analytical Services (Cheshire, CT)
utilized Auger Electron Spectroscopy to assess the ability of zMAX
to penetrate metal surfaces. Tests were conducted on cast iron and
aluminum alloy specimens similar in composition to metals used in
the production of automotive engines. The metal specimens were
immersed in the test fluids for seven to fourteen days under
temperature-cycled conditions (i.e., ambient to 100 °C to simulate
some modes of an operating engine environment). Comparative tests
of zMAX by itself and in blends with a commercial SAE 5w30 SJ
formulated engine oil showed the zMAX penetrated both types of
metal far deeper than engine oil alone. Although it was not possible
to precisely quantify the difference in penetration depths between
zMAX and the engine oil, the order of magnitude difference was at
least 100: 1. This ability to soak (i.e., be absorbed) into metal
surfaces is the key to zMAX 's effectiveness.

Carbon Reduction and Dispersion - A testing program
conducted by Savant Inc. (Midland, MI) used the TEOST MHT-4
test procedure, a modification of ASTM D6335 to assess carbon
deposit formation. This procedure is routinely used for measuring the
ability of fully formulated engine oils to control high temperature
deposits and resist oxidation. This test, a requirement for meeting
current SAE/API and ILSAC engine oil performance standards,
basically simulates deposit formation in the piston ring belt area of a
modem engine by allowing oil to flow over a heated steel tube in an
oxidizing atmosphere. Blends of zMAX and two different reference
engine oils were made. Again, the metal specimens were exposed to
the same preconditioning cycle described above. The two reference
engine oils differed in their ability for controlling carbon deposits, one
being a high deposit oil while the other being a low deposit oil. The
results of these tests revealed a reduction in carbon deposits when
zMAX was present, with reductions of 14.6% and 12.3% for the
low and high deposit reference oils respectively.

In an another laboratory study conducted by Oil-Chem Research
Corporation (Bedford Park, IL), sludge from an engine oil pan was
mixed with different fluids and heated to 100 °C with vertically hung
strips of chromatography paper partially immersed in the sludge/fluid
mixtures. Through capillary action, the fluids migrate up the paper.
Depending upon the ability of the fluid to disperse the sludge
components, the capillary action will transport different amounts and
types of carbonaceous matter. Comparative testing of zMAX by itself
and zMAX /oil blends versus engine oil, mineral oil, and several
major aftermarket additives showed much larger amounts of carbon
matter being transported when zMAX was present. This
demonstrated the ability of zMAX to disperse engine deposits which
was further confirmed in subsequent engine dynamometer testing.

Friction and Wear Bench Tests - A series of ASTM bench
tests which are used to assess the fundamental behavior of oils to
control friction and wear between rubbing metal surfaces were
conducted by Savant Inc. (Midland, MI). Six different test
procedures which varied both in the mechanical configuration and
applied loading were selected. Each procedure was slightly modified
by the same preconditioning of metal specimens mentioned above.
Multiple testing was conducted. The following compares test results
of a commercial SAE 5w30 SJ engine oil without and with zMAX,
the reduction in wear and coefficient of friction, or increase in
time to failure being a direct result of zMAX.

1. ASTM D4172 Four Ball Wear Test
3 to 11% reduction in the wear scar diameter

2. ASTM D5183 Four Ball Wear and Coefficient of Friction
Test
9 to 61 % reduction in the wear scar diameter
10 to 14% reduction in the coefficient of friction

3. ASTM G99 Pin-on-Disk Test
Up to 2% reduction in the coefficient of friction

4. Savant Progressive Load Test
10 to 22% reduction in the coefficient of friction
29% less weight loss of the pin

5. ASTM D2714 Block-on Ring Test
4 to 13% reduction in the coefficient of friction
3 1 % reduction in specimen weight loss
16% reduction in wear scar diameter

6. ASTM D5620 Thin Film-on-Vee Block Test
Up to 300% increase in time to failure

All of these tests showed improvements in friction (i.e., lowering the
coefficient of friction) and reduced wear when zMAX was present
giving a strong indication that friction and wear would also be
reduced in operating engines. Further, there were no incidents that the
presence of zMAX caused any adverse or negative effect in any of
these tests.

Bench Rust Tests - Using the ASTM D1748 Rust Protection by
Metal Preservatives in the Humidity Cabinet procedure, a series of
aviation piston engine oils were evaluated by Phoenix Chemical
Laboratory Inc. (Chicago, IL) for their ability to prevent the onset of
rusting with and without zMAX. The procedure was modified by
first incorporating the same preconditioning of metal specimens
mentioned above. Using three commercial aviation piston engine oils,
the time before the start of rusting was increased by 10 to 100 %
when zMAX was present in the oil. These results demonstrate the
ability of zMAX to provide enhanced surface protection from rusting.

SAE J1321 Fuel Economy Tests - Four separate tests on the
effectiveness of zMAX to improve fuel economy were conducted
using in-use vehicles tested in accordance to the SAE J1321 Joint
TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test procedure. In summary, the test
protocol requires measuring the fuel consumption (by weight to
improve accuracy) of a group of test and control vehicles by driving
the vehicles over a fixed-length road course or test track at a fixed rate
of speed. The test is conducted in two phases, a baseline phase before
any changes are made to the vehicles, and a test phase in which the
test vehicles receive a change. The difference in fuel consumption
between the baseline and test phases is used to calculate the change in
fuel economy. In this case, the test vehicles received the zMAX
treatment in the crankcase, transmission and fuel tank. The control
vehicles remain constant between the baseline and test phases and are
used in the calculations to correct for the influences of ambient
weather conditions. A summary of the four tests follows.

1. Claude Travis Associates (Grand Rapids, MI) - This test was
conducted on an on-road course with two 1994 Class 8 Trucks
powered by Cummins N1 diesel engines. One vehicle received
zMAX treatment in the fuel, crankcase and transmission while the
other vehicle was unchanged between the base and test periods. The
test results showed a fuel economy improvement of 2.61% for the
test vehicle.

2. Automotive Testing & Development Services, Inc. (Ontario, CA) -
This test was conducted with three test vehicles and two control
vehicles at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway in June of 2000. A
summary of the test results follows.

Vehicle % MPG
Improvement
1992 Plymouth Acclaim, 2.5L 6.4
to 7.7%
1999 Chevrolet Malibu, 3.1L 8.8
to 9.5%
1995 Ford F-150, 5.0L
~0.1%

3. Automotive Testing & Development Services, Inc. (Ontario, CA) -
This test was conducted with seven test vehicles and one control
vehicle at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway in May of 2001. A
summary of the test results follows.

Vehicle % MPG
Improvement
1996 Kia Sephia 4.6
1996 Ford Escort Wagon 3.3
1996 Ford Taurus 6.6
1989 Ford Crown Victoria 3.6
1995 Ford F-150 P/U 0.2
1997 Chevrolet Lumina 4.7
1995 Chevrolet Astro Van 2.5
Average % Improvement - 3.6

4. Gerald H. Keller, Consultant (Palos Heights, IL) - This test was
conducted with eight test vehicles and one control vehicle at the
Chicago Motor Speedway in June of 2001. A summary of test
results follows.

Vehicle % MPG
Improvement
1991 Mazda, 2.2L 12.7
1988 Toyota Corolla, 1.6L 2.4
1986 Chrysler LeBaron, 2.2L 14.9
1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass, 3.4L 2.8
1991 Mercury Cougar, 3.8L 2.6
1989 Toyota Camry, 2.0L 4.8
1985 Dodge Van, 225 CID 0.9
1990 Chevrolet Beretta; 3.1L 3.1
Average % Improvement - 5.5

These test results show a wide range in the change of fuel economy
due to zMAX. Since all of these vehicles had seen a relatively high
level of road use (odometers ranged from 43 to 226,000 miles), the
engines had accumulated carbon in the critical sealing areas. Thus, the
ability of zMAX to penetrate the metal surfaces and improve engine
sealing resulted in improved engine efficiency.

A statistical analysis of the data generated from the SAE J3121 fuel
economy tests conducted by Automotive Testing & Development
Services, Inc in June 2000 and May 2001, and the Chicago test
conducted by Gerald Keller in June 2001 was performed. The
method used in this analysis involved the “Dependent
Samples t-Test” methodology and is widely used where the
significance of an observed change in two populations of data is to be
measured. Applying this methodology, each of the three SAE J3121
fuel economy tests conducted on zMAX afforded statistically valid
improvements in fuel economy.

Vehicle Emissions Tests - Two vehicular emission test
programs have conducted with zMAX and are described below.

1. Automotive Testing & Development Services, Inc. (Ontario, CA) -

This test program employed five vehicles that were obtained from a
rental agency. The vehicles were a 1996 Ford Escort, 1989 Ford
Crown Victoria, 1995 Ford F-150 P/U, 1997 Chevrolet Lumina, and
a 1995 Chevrolet Astro Van. After inspection and lubricant changes,
the vehicles were base-lined for their emissions levels using the FTP
40 CFR-86 procedure. After a second lubricant change, the vehicles
were treated with zMAX and the emissions tests were repeated. At
this point the vehicles were returned to the rental agency and allowed
to accumulate mileage for a thirty-day period at which point the
vehicles were emissions tested again. This cycle was repeated for an
additional thirty-day period affording sixty days of road use. The
average results of these emissions tests are summarized in the
following table.

% Reduction
HC CO
NOx
After 30 days of road use
-9.7% -15.3% -9.7%
After 60 days of road use
-4.8% -4.8% -8.3%

The reductions in all three pollutants is a significant event and is
attributed to the action of the zMAX in cleaning carbon from the
engine’s critical sealing areas and parts of the emission control system
such as the oxygen sensor.

2. Gerald H. Keller, Consultant (Palos Heights, IL) - These tests
were conducted on the same vehicles as used in the SAE J1321 fuel
economy tests (June 2001) using the BAR 90 procedure. This is the
procedure recommended by EPA for state emission surveillance
purposes. The eight test vehicles were tested for their emissions at the
start and end of the fuel economy testing which represented about
1,500 miles accumulated after adding zMAX. The average change in
HC and CO levels are shown below. The NOx data is not considered
since the BAR 90 procedure does not apply load to the vehicle, and
thus NOx data has little significance for on-road emissions levels.

% Reduction
HC emissions @ idle

-42.2%
HC emissions @ 2500 rpm
-76.0%
CO emissions @ idle
-52.9%
CO emissions @ 2500 rpm
-52.2%

Engine Dynamometer Testing -A variety of different
stationary engine dynamometer tests have been conducted on zMAX
providing information on fuel economy, power, wear, blow-by, and
deposits. These tests are summarized below.

CLR Engine Testing - The CLR engine is a single cylinder carbureted engine
which develops peak power output of 16.5 hp @ 3000 rpm. This engine has
been used for many years in petroleum product research and development
activities to assess the influence of new product formulations on engine
performance. The engine is currently used by the petroleum industry for
qualification to SAE/API/ILSAC engine oil standards. Although this single
cylinder engine is used primarily for measuring bearing weight loss and shear
stability of multigraded oils, it nonetheless is an excellent laboratory engine
capable of providing additional engine performance measurements (e.g., fuel
consumption, horsepower, etc.) as evidenced by the large number of technical
papers in the literature citing the use of this engine.

Ten (10) different evaluations of zMAX have been conducted
with this engine. Each evaluation consisted of two tests, a
baseline test on an engine oil without zMAX followed by a
second test where the same oil and fuel were treated with zMAX.
The tests used a modification of standard industry protocols, the
L-38 (ASTM D5119) and the Sequence VIII (ASTM D6709).
The major modification was to introduce an engine-
preconditioning phase in the procedure for initially allowing
zMAX to be absorbed. This modification, a ten hour
preconditioning period, was used on both the baseline and zMAX
tests to insure both tests were being conducted identically. The
results of these tests, which were conducted by Auto Research
Labs, Inc. (Chicago, IL) and later by the Oil-Chem Research
Corporation (Bedford Park, IL), are as follows.

a. SAE 50 Aircraft Piston Engine Oil + 5% zMAX and 12 oz.
zMAX in the fuel (modified L-38 test procedure)

8.3% increase in power
8.5% improvement in fuel efficiency (bsfc)
17.0% reduction in blow-by
Piston skirt wear reduced from 9.5% to 3.5%
Intake valve stem wear reduced from 18% to7%
Exhaust valve stem wear reduced from 3% to 1%
Intake valve deposits reduced from 5% to 2%
Exhaust valve deposits reduced from 3% to 1%

b. Pennzoil SAE l0w30 SJ + 8.5% zMAX and 12 oz. zMAX in
the fuel (modified Sequence VIII test procedure)

7.6% increase in power
6.6% improvement in fuel efficiency (bsfc)
4.3% reduction in blow-by
69% reduction in exhaust valve guide wear
Increase in top ring gap reduced from.0001 to 0.0 inches
Used oil wear metals reduced by over 50%
Fewer deposits on piston lands, grooves and skirts

c. MotorCraft SAE 5w20 SJ + 5.0% zMAX and 12 oz. zMAX
in the fuel (modified Sequence VIII test procedure)

3.8% increase in power
2.8% improvement in fuel efficiency (bsfc)
69% reduction in exhaust valve guide wear
Increase in second ring gap reduced from 0.0002 to
0.0001 inches
Used oil wear metals reduced by over 50%
Fewer deposits on piston lands, grooves and skirts

d. MotorCraft SAE 5w20 SJ + 8.5% zMAX and 12 oz. zMAX
in the fuel (modified Sequence VIII test procedure)

5.2% increase in power
4.2% improvement in fuel efficiency (bsfc)
3.5% reduction in blow-by
57% reduction in exhaust valve guide wear
Increase in top ring gap reduced from 0.0001 to 0.0 in.

Used oil wear metals reduced by over 50%
Less deposits on piston lands, grooves and skirts

e. MotorCraft SAE 5w20 SJ + 8.5% zMAX and 12 oz. zMAX
in the fuel (modified Sequence VIII procedure). In this test, the
baseline phase was run as usual. Then, instead of reassembling
the engine with new parts and engine cleaning as was done in the
previous four tests, the engine was measured and reassembled
with the used parts from the baseline phase.

7.0% increase in power
6.6% improvement in fuel efficiency (bsfc)
0.2% reduction in blow-by
92% reduction in exhaust valve guide wear
Used oil wear metals reduced by over 50%

A statistical analysis of the data generated from the CLR/
Sequence VIII engine testing conducted on the above four tests
(i.e., numbers 1b through 1e) was performed to assess the
individual hourly horsepower and fuel efficiency readings. The
method used in this analysis involved the “Dependent Samples t-
Test” methodology and is widely used where the significance of
an observed change in two populations of data is to be measured.
Applying this methodology on each of the four engine tests run
on zMAX at different concentrations and with different oils has
shown the changes in horsepower (bhp) and fuel efficiency
(bsfc) were statistically different at a 99% confidence level. This
analysis provided evidence that the observed improvements in
these parameters were real and not simply due to test
variability.

f. Mobil 1 SAE 10w30 SJ + 8.5% zMAX and 12 oz. zMAX in
the fuel (modified Sequence VIII test procedure)

7.2% increase in power
6.6% improvement in fuel efficiency (bsfc)
17.4% reduction in blow-by
10.8% reduction in bearing weight loss
18.1% reduction in ring weight loss

g. Mobil 1 SAE 10w30 SJ + 8.5% zMAX and 12 oz. zMAX in
the fuel (modified Sequence VIII test procedure) repeat of the
above test to demonstrate repeatability of method.

6.5% increase in power
5.8% improvement in fuel efficiency (bsfc)
30.1% reduction in blow-by
25.3% reduction in bearing weight loss
52.1% reduction in ring weight loss

h. Amsoil SAE 10w30 SJ + 8.5% zMAX and 12 oz. zMAX in
the fuel (modified Sequence VIII test procedure).

2.5% increase in power
2.4% improvement in fuel efficiency (bsfc)
12.1% reduction in blow-by
94% reduction in valve guide bore wear
37.3% reduction in bearing weight loss
12.1% reduction in ring weight loss

i. Pennzoil SAE 5w30 SJ + 8.5% zMAX and 12 oz. zMAX in
the fuel (modified Sequence VIII test procedure).

4.4% increase in power
4.3% improvement in fuel efficiency (bsfc)
7.5% reduction in blow-by
16.7% reduction in bearing weight loss
58.0% reduction in ring weight loss
97% reduction in valve guide bore wear

j. Pennzoil SAE 5w30 SJ + 8.5% zMAX and 12 oz. zMAX in
the fuel (modified Sequence VIII test procedure) repeat of the
above test conducted approximately one year later.

4.1% increase in power
3.9% improvement in fuel efficiency (bsfc)
3.8% reduction in blow-by
32.7% reduction in bearing weight loss

Ford 2.0L Engine test - For this test, a new (1,000 miles) Ford
2.0L engine from a 2000 Ford Escort was mounted on an engine
dynamometer testing stand at Oil-Chem Research Corporation,
fully equipped for engine parameter control and continuous data
monitoring. The test procedure consisted of running the engine
at conditions which simulated 65 mph (2500 rpm and 26.0 hp
load). The fuel rate was allowed to float to what ever level the
engine's power control module would dictate. The engine was
first base-lined on Pennzoil SAE 5w30 SJ oil for 14 hours with
the power output controlled to 26.0 hp. Without changing the oil,
the crankcase and fuel were treated with 12 oz. of zMAX.

The engine was then run for a preconditioning phase consisting
of one hour run periods followed by 5 to 12 hours soak periods.
After ten run/soak cycles, the engine was again run for 14 hours
at the same conditions as the baseline phase. The difference in
fuel efficiency resulted in a 2.3% improvement due to zMAX.

Shaw Dynamometer Engine Services - This test was conducted
on an engine dynamometer test stand using a Chevrolet 468 CID
engine. The engine was first base-lined for high output
conditions through a controlled acceleration ramp while
monitoring torque and horsepower. zMAX was added to the
crankcase at a treat rate of 7.5% and 2.0 oz. was poured into the
carburetor. The measured power of the engine increased by
1.1 to 4.2 % (depending upon the engine rpm) after the zMAX
treatment.

Yamaha 600 Legend Test- A 1200cc Yamaha engine was
mounted on an engine test stand at Oil-Chem Research
Corporation. Horsepower and torque were measured at speeds
from 6,000 to 10,000 rpm in 1,000-rpm increments. After
obtaining baseline data, zMAX was added through the
carburetion system and the engine run for a short period followed
by a four-day soaking period. The engine was run again through
the rpm range. The average increase in horsepower and
torque after the zMAX treatment was 6.4% and 6.3%
respectively.

Labeco Equipment Corporation - A single cylinder 17.6 CID
engine (the predecessor to the CLR engine discussed earlier) was
run at two test conditions, 2,700 rpm and either 50" or 75" boost
in inlet air pressure. Oil and water temperatures were controlled
to 195 and 270 °F respectively. All other engine settings were
for best power output. The zMAX was added to the crankcase at
a treat level of 5% and 1% was put in the fuel. The indicated
horsepower increased by 2.8 to 6. 1 %, while the fuel
consumption decreased by 3.8 to 8.2% after zMAX treatment.

Armour Research Institute - This test was run a 6-cylinder
Chevrolet engine using the L-4 procedure for oil oxidation. The
test oil, a SAE 50 aviation piston engine oil, was first evaluated
for its viscosity characteristics after the 36-hour test. The test
was repeated with the same oil but containing 5% zMAX. At the
end of the test, the viscosity of the untreated oil increased by 89%
while the viscosity of the oil with zMAX increased by only
16%.

Cummins Michigan. Inc. - This test facility has the capability to
test a full size truck on a vehicle dynamometer and measure
power output at highway speeds. The test vehicle from the
Claude Travis Associates SAE J1321 fuel economy test
discussed earlier was base-lined at this facility before the zMAX
treatment, and then tested again after 7000 miles of road use. The
truck was developing ~7% more horsepower during this second
test, which showed zMAX had restored power in the engine.

Controlled Field Tests - Two controlled field evaluations of
zMAX have been conducted and are summarized below.

Executive Helicopter Inc. (Chicago, IL) - This company had a
fleet of helicopters which were powered by Lycoming HIO 360
CIA engines and operated out of Chicago Midway Airport. One
of these units received regular treatments of AvBlend (the same
formulation as zMAX with a different trade name) and the engine
received overhauls at 1,000 hours of operation by Blueprint
Aircraft Engines, Inc. The normal routine for engine overhaul at
1,000 hours is to oversize and/or re-chrome piston cylinder walls
to restore the proper dimensions. During the use of AvBlend, it
was observed that cylinder wear (bore size, out-of-roundness,
choke) was essentially still at new factory specifications, and the
exhaust valves and guides were free of deposits, and also had
minimal wear (.001 inch increase in valve/guide clearance).
Because of these findings, the FAA approved the extension of
time between overhauls in several increments up to 1,500 hours
while the AvBlend was being used. The cylinders from this
engine were continuously monitored until they were retired after
7,800 hours of use. Normally, cylinders can only achieve one
overhaul cycle before they need oversizing and/or re-chroming.
Based on this field demonstration, the FAA granted approval for
the use of AvBlend as a supplement to the crankcase oil. This is
the only product of its kind which has received such an approval.

Scheibert Energy Company (Honolulu, HI) - This company is in
the business of power generation on the island of Oahu. Part of
the plant equipment uses Hercules 8.8L V-6 propane fired engines
in a cogeneration station. zMAX was added to oil, a Shell Rotella
SAE 40, at a concentration of ~3%. After the addition of zMAX,
the engine efficiency increased by 17.3%. Also, exhaust
temperature was reduced by 120 °F. These changes were
observed during the entire 5,000-hour service period.

Just to make clear, I have no stake in this. It's the info I'm interested in. Use the product, don't use it. Praise/attack it, or not.
No synlube type attacks from me.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×