A Rick Potvin Forum | Does Zmax Work? | www.rickpotvin.com | rick_potvin@yahoo.com
 


  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Hello to readers. I'll try to summarize soon.

October 2 2003 at 8:55 AM
No score for this post
  (Login recreation)
Forum Owner
from IP address 209.240.198.62

 
I created this forum to try to get to the truth of Z max. I haven't been around much however. I'll be dropping by more frequently soon to try to summarize things. If anyone can assist me in offering a summary based on posts here, you're more than welcome to help out. Thanks.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

(no login)
66.140.92.176

Some Summary Thoughts

No score for this post
October 2 2003, 11:20 AM 

1. It appears that the stuff does work...somewhat, and that's what the majority of the PEOPLE WHO HAVE TRIED IT have reported.
2. It may harm some engines, especially older, higher mileage engines.
3. It's expensive!
4. Is it worth it? Probably not. But, it is the only thing that I've found that has worked at all. The rest of the bunch prints alot of BS on the label, but deliver no goods.
5. There are alot of self-appointed experts who are down on it, but most of these so-called experts haven't tried the stuff. And, the same group of experts appear to be very thin-skinned...can't take a joke. Oh well, maybe they have no life.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

(no login)
209.240.198.62

Thanks, John.

No score for this post
October 3 2003, 6:08 AM 

I'll be around over the next week or two to see if I concur.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

(no login)
198.81.26.134

I have done a lot of research, because I had to....

No score for this post
December 25 2003, 4:04 PM 

that is what one does when they want to learn the truth.

If Thomas Edison listened to all his naysayers, we would still be living in the dark for lack of lights,
eating bad food for lack of electricity to run
refridgerators, writing on notebooks--instead of computers...Let's keep it simple..gentlemen.

zMAX is NOT and additive, at least not one that is in the same class as Slick 50 etc. zMAX treats the metal-not the lubricants or fuel. zMAX does not contaminate, nor change the premiun engine oils formulation.

zMAX is a PURE micro-lubricant, using the engines oils & fuel as carriers to soak into metal parts. Just like an iron frying pan, try to fry an egg on it with out it being seasoned...Try running your engine with out it being lubricated and seasoned.

Here's the best part---zMAX contains NO chlorinated paraffins, teflon, moly, TCP or other harmful solids or chemicals.

What does your 'additive' contain? What are you spuing into the air?

As a matter of fact; per the Chicago Daily Tribune,
1954, Joe Lencki's (now passed on, zMAX founder)
relationship with the SAE ( Society of Engineers) and the oil industry had Lenckite (zMAX) in an excellent position for acceptance by the API (American Petroleum Institute)& SAE. The meeting was set in the Pfizer Hotel in Milwaukee. On the day before the meeting all the petrochemists from VOP were killed in a car accident. Joe was waiting for them at the hotel. Lencki said "My life's work with these gentlemen is lost, I will never recover from this tragedy". (No computer--no back up..all research materials were lost)

Those killed:

Thomas D. Jones, 30 a SHELL OIL COMPANY research engineer.

Stanley C. Sundling, 45, President of the Labratory Equipment company in Mooresville, Ind.

William S. Powell, 41, Vice President of Sundlings firm and Chairman of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Technical committee.

The driver, Kenneth Boldt, 40, director of the Pure Oil company's automotive fuel division survived, with a severed leg.. He never fully recovered.

As we all know, Alternative Fueled Vehicles will never, never replace the good ole diesel and gasoline engines.. and equipment.

Before you is an opportunity to right a wrong and do what is right for the health and welfare of our communities.

The FAA approved AVBlend, the sister product to zMAX January 31st 1980. I have seen the letters of approval. As a matter of fact, they stated in a letter dated, 12/22/00, that they had no reports of engine operating problems, engine failures or engine damage as a result of the use of AVBlend. We are talking about the FAA.

Guess what,,,AVBlend and zMAX are the same product-same ingrediants, just different names.

Thanks for your time.. and make a great year!

Destiny is not a matter of chance or is it?
It IS a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for...it is a thing to be achieved.





 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

(Login recreation)
Forum Owner
209.240.205.62

Wow. Incredible stuff--- is there any possibility of foul play in that accident?

No score for this post
January 31 2004, 4:44 AM 

Does the accident have any suspicious circumstances surrounding it? Do you get the sense that there was any foul play? Thanks for this excellent research!!

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
JMG
(no login)
198.81.26.74

....Your guess is as good as mine.

No score for this post
February 2 2004, 6:50 AM 

It does make you wonder... especially if you read about the seven sisters.

In the mean time,if you are looking to save money and practice prudent measures, you owe it to yourself to use zMAX on a regular basis; twice a year on ALL your equipment and vehicles.

Consider the fact that the EPA has been lowering the sulfur content (to lower emissions) in diesel fuels, since the 90's or there abouts. We will have a new lower limit to meet in 2006, called ultra low diesel.

It does lower emissions, but causes a lot of headaches and parts expense for any vehicle/equipment not purchased in the 2000's. Hummm..And, it shows NO change and can possibly increase NOx emissions-(this is what causes smog and the 'greenhouse'effect). We have opened a big box of worms...but what else is new..the money pit and an additional burden to American industrys and people.

It is common knowledge that internal engine pumps rely on fuel for lubrication. Sulfur is one of the ingrediants that give diesel fuels lubrication.

In the United States, the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) published their “Recommended Guideline on Premium Diesel Fuel” in 1997. This document, identified as EMA FQP-1A, did include a lubricity requirement for both grades of low sulfur diesel fuel.

Additionally, the World-Wide Fuel Charter published by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) in January 2000 also specified a lubricity requirement for all four of their diesel fuel categories. More recently, the Diesel Fuel Injection Equipment Manufacturers (FIE) issued a “Common Position Statement on Fuel for Diesel Engines.” in June 2000. Contained within this statement was a strong recommendation for including the same lubricity requirement as in the EN590 standard. So there has been some progress...thanks for letting us know, this would have been something we would have appreciated being advertised to death over. HUMMM, parts, parts, parts, new cars, new car sales...

Remember when they took lead out of fuels.. I am one for forward movement, but lets look at ALL possibilities and not just the special interest groups before we start making changes to our livelyhoods and lifestyles.

Best of luck.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Current Topic - Hello to readers. I'll try to summarize soon.
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement