oil, Zmax
 

what oil you guys running? and do you put Zmax in?

in my tt 225 all i have ever put in was 0w-30 synthetic oil.

Zmax came out a few years ago and was thinking of going with it...

Do some Googling. I've seen a lot of VERY bad reviews of Zmax.

It's recommended to use Ester-based oils in our VHR engines. So something like Motul 5W30 or Redline 5W30 would do better.

And use 5W30, not 0W30.

Most prefer to run synthetic. There is no evidence that any given brand will make your engine last longer or protect it better over another brand. So, pick whatever brand you like.

so synthetic 5w-30 is what most people run...

this is what i found.....crazy...it is just snake oil!

Performance Claims For zMax Auto Additives Are Unsubstantiated, FTC Charges
The Federal Trade Commission has filed suit in U. S. District Court seeking to halt false and misleading advertising for zMax auto additives and has asked the court to order refunds to consumers who bought the products. 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. zMax is manufactured by Oil-Chem, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. Speedway, based in Concord, North Carolina, operates NASCAR race tracks in the South and in California, in addition to marketing the zMax products.

According to the FTC complaint, since at least May 1999, zMax ran infomercials touting its "Power System," a $39 package of three additives to be used in the engine, fuel line and transmission of automobiles. The infomercials feature testimonials from consumers and race car drivers making claims such as, "I was averaging about 22 miles to the gallon on the highway. I installed the zMax and so I jumped right up to about 28 miles per gallon;" and "zMax guarantees a minimum of 10 percent gas mileage increase." Other marketing and promotional pieces claim, "zMax with LinKite has the scientific, CRC L38 proof it takes your car to the MAX!" and "Why zMAX Works - Cuts carbon build-up on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on piston skirts 60%; Reduces blow-by leakage 17.7%; Increases combustion efficiency 9.25%; Lowers fuel consumption 8.5% - Results of an independent CRC L38 test."

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. The 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.

The FTC's complaint alleges that the defendants did not possess and rely on reasonable substantiation for the following claims in the infomercial, on the Web site and in brochures that zMax:

increases gas mileage;

increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10%

reduces engine wear;

reduces or eliminates engine wear at startup;

reduces engine corrosion;

extends engine life; and

reduces emissions.

The agency's complaint also alleges that the defendants falsely represent that the results of the CRC L38 test proved that zMax:

increases gas mileage;

reduces engine wear;

extends engine life;

lowers fuel consumption by 8.5%

lowers wear on valve stems by 66%

lowers wear on piston skirts by 60%; and

cuts carbon build-up on valve stems by 66%.

Finally, the FTC charges that in consumer testimonials and endorsements in their advertising, the defendants did not have substantiation for the representation that the endorsers' experiences were, "The actual and current opinions, findings, beliefs, and/or experiences of those consumers; and the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use the product."

The FTC is asking the court to bar the defendants from violating the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive acts and to order consumer redress or require that they give up their ill-gotten gains.

This case is the latest in a series of FTC law-enforcement initiatives targeting unsubstantiated claims made by auto additive manufacturers. The FTC previously halted allegedly deceptive advertising by the marketers of Dura Lube, Motor Up, Prolong, Valvoline, Slick 50, and STP, other major brands of engine treatment products.

The Commission vote to file the complaint was 5-0. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, in Greensboro, January 31, 2001.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants actually have violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.

Copies of the complaint are available from the FTC's web site at Federal Trade Commission and also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint, or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies worldwide.
Media Contact:
Claudia Bourne Farrell,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181
Staff Contact:
Heather Hippsley or Elaine Kolish,
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3285 or 202-326-3042
(FTC File No. 002 3256)
(Civil Action No. 1:01CV00126)

well...im glade you said to do some googling, didnt even cross my mind. guess everything you see on TV is not true!

It's a good thing this thread is in an obscure part of the forums. If it were anywhere else but here, there would be riots.

Oil is a touchy subject.

:iagree: And misunderstood by most.

what do you run Partsguy?

Amsoil 5W30 full synthetic

Redline 5w30, actually I started running Redline in the Diff and tranny. The tranny is a lot less notchy when cold, very smooth now. I really don't feel a difference in the diff.

I heard if you add Extenze to your oil it will grow the displacement. :stirthepot:

Whoever said that "more than twice as much bearing corrosion" is bad for your engine? Twice as much is so better than once as much:tup:

Oil threads attract posts like flies to $h1t.

BTW, I also use Amsoil 5W30. I had mine tested after an oil change. It tested extremely good. BUT.... opinions are like a$$holes.... everyone has one.

I'm pleased with Amsoil.

I figure:

A. If you have enough oil in the engine
B. It some sort of synthetic of prescribed weight

You're probably much better off than an average driver

Vuk has his own oil?

I have been changing my oil myself for over 30 years and have used dino and synthetic. I have never had my oil tested because, imho, it's a waste of money unless you make your living racing cars as a driver or a team owner. Why? Ask yourself this. If the test results come back and one or two elements are higher than normal which would indicate a wearing issue, changing your oil to different brand will not correct the wear - the damage has been done. Now, ask yourself this, how bad is the wear? If the engine is running fine, but the analysis indicates wear, are you going to tear done your engine looking for the fault such as the bearings? Probably not. And if after receiving the negative analysis, do you have access to sophisticated equipment that can do a vibration analysis to confirm the oil analysis and pinpoint the problem? Doubtful. For the non-believers out there, you can pay the extra money after each oil change for analysis and follow their recommendations. Maybe, just maybe, you might squeeze out a few thousand miles more from your engine. But hey, who cares if you can already get 150,000 miles from your engine without any oil analysis'? I don't.

My advice is to save your money doing oil analysis', use API certified oil, change it in accordance to the type of driving you do and most of all............forget about oil debates and go out and enjoy your damn car!

Btw, I performed spectrograhic oil analysis for Canadian warship propulsion systems at one point in my career as a marine systems engineer. When certain elements were reading high, the first action was to direct a VA - vibration analysis. Navy's have the bucks to invest in sophisticated analysis equipment whereas your local tuner doesn't. Guess your stuck with what to do with the results which may not be a concern to begin with. Think about it. My 2/100 of a loonie. Oh, my current oil of choice in all my cars and bikes is Mobil 1.

:icon18:

I really believe you're missing the entire point of having oil tested. Or maybe, you just don't understand what an oil test looks for. You don't just get results for "one or two" elements. And wear, being pretty important, is not the whole issue here.

An oil analysis checks the entire chemical spectrum. Can tell you what's in the oil after specific intervals. Can tell you, by the analysis, what's in the oil AND why. It can pinpoint problems at an early stage. It can show potential problems with the engine or other systems (such as air intake or exhaust systems) early enough to correct BEFORE the issue turns into a major problem.

I'll give you a shining example. I had my oil tested at 9800 kms. My third oil change. The interval was around 4200 kms for the life of the oil that was tested. It showed minute (and I mean very small) amounts of the metals associated with normal break-in on an engine (gas burning engine). Absolutely normal. And I expect that these will probably go even smaller as the engine wears further. (With regular "babying".) What WAS found was high amounts of carbon. IE: DIRT. What this showed was a problem with the filtration on the air intake. Without getting into arguments about K & N filters, let's just say THAT was the problem.

I had no idea that the K & N filters were allowing so much dirt into the engine. I quickly solved the problem (again, no K & N bashing). I had the oil tested again at 12000 kms. Even better results with the metals (smaller amounts). BUT... the carbon was almost gone.

To make a long post about testing end, I'll just say that I was convinced oil analysis caught a potential problem very early. I had no idea that this was happening. The test showed me the issue. I corrected it and now the results are even better.

Say what you want about testing and how you think it's a complete waste of time and money. For me, the example above shows just how important it can be. I know, this debate "can" be as endless as the oil debate itself. But with just my example, it shows what it can discover AND whether it may need attention.

(btw, I replaced the K & N filters with AFE dry filters. Problem solved.)

:iagree: Wow, amazing post. Rep points to you!

Agreed, the oil analysis also tests for the properties of the oil such as viscosity. In your example, carbon, was detected in the oil through the oil analysis. Your filter was probably defective. I say this because I have used K&N for years without issues along with millions of others. However, you were lucky because it was an easy fix - replace the filter. On the other hand, how long would your engine have lasted if gone undetected? Who knows really. Your oil filter may have been able to filter out the debris. Oil filters do not filter out all particles as you know. They only filter down to a size which is considered acceptable that those particles that do pass through won't do harm to the engine or they recirculate through back to the oil filter. Also keep in mind, the analysis only detects the elements that have leeched into the oil and not the actual particles themselves. Now if the oil filter was sent to the lab, a filter debris analysis could be performed. So, even though the analysis identified a problem, it does not mean that damage was inevitable over time. Hence, maybe the problem was not that serious to begin with. But, who knows for sure. You are happy with oil analyzing. I don't bother. Engines today are very reliable when scheduled maintenance is performed.

Uh.... it wasn't the oil filter causing the problem. It was the air filters. And the problem WAS quite serious. The carbon detected was 42 times the acceptable level.

You also ask "how long would the engine have lasted if it had gone undetected"? Well, not as long without needing some kind of internal repair for damage caused by the excessive dirt. If you want a figure...... let's say under 50,000 kilometers (a guess).

Again, I think it shows the benifits of oil analysis testing. It may cost some money ($19.95), but it saves money, time, and heartache.

Too bad you didn't replace the air filter with another K&N to know with greater certainty that they are a crappy filter. I don't think they are and still feel yours was defective.

I understand what you're saying but understand why I mentioned your oil filter. Was not the carbon detected in the oil? Then it was passing through to the oil and then into the oil filter, no? How much carbon was the oil filter trapping or were the particles so small they just passed through the oil filter and recirculated continually being held in suspension in the oil? Now do you see why I mentioned the oil filter? I'm not trying to win any argument but I'm saying there is more to the numbers than just saying it was 42 times higher and that equates to catastrophic failure. I know you didn't say that but some in here would believe that. But a 100 times higher could still be acceptable if the particles were drained out at the next change and the next change and so on (constant flushing out of the contaminants) and still not cause damage for say, 50000 as you suggest or maybe even 100,000. Neither one of us knows the answer and as you said can only guess. You were lucky you could flush your problem away. Internal wear is a different ballgame.

6MT, I'm sitting here eating some crow for supper. I wasn't focused on the path of the dirt from the air filter to the oil pan but more on the oil analysis itself. So, did the dirt clean up your intake valves and piston tops?

Fair enough. I really don't think there was accumulated "dirt" on the valves or pistons. It was an issue that needed attention before it became a problem. No damage done and a lesson learned on K & N filters.

The only oil analysis I do is once a month looking at a dipstick.:tup:

Given, I don't keep cars for longer than 3 years and always run Mobile1. New cars have warranty, if something fails it gets fixed by the dealer.

However, I could see a point in detailed oil lab test if I were to pass the car to my children.

No man. Amsoil is different then AMS they are not related at all. That being said vuk could prob get you some in.

Also if ur talking to vuk anytime soon tell him to sponsor the site I've been meaning to for a while but I have not seen him for a while now.