I won a two bottle pack of Z MAX one for oil another for fuel anybody ever try this stuff? Is it any good ? It better be the retail price is $29.99

 

Seems like smoke and mirrors to me. I love how they get Carrol Shelby to "endorse" the product even though he never even mentions the name of said product. Stick with seafoam, tried and true.

 

Isn't going to hurt anything if it's for free but don't expect anything either.

 

BG>Seafoam

 

I 2nd the BG's 44K. I use it in all my vehicles once a year and have for the last 15 years.

 

Sorry, never heard of this BG stuff. I personally have never really been a big fan of additives/cleaning products.

 

BGs is different (hence the $20+ for a can) and actually works and is one product that has been recommended to me by more of a variety of mechanics and car guys than any other product I've come across in the last 15 years.

I swear by it and from looking at the head of my old turbo Eclipse after 120k and 8 seasons of racing it the piston tops were pretty clean and my injectors flowed very well the whole time too.

This stuff isn't the same as a $5 bottle of injector cleaning stuff.

 

Where do you get this BG stuff?

 

Than why recommend one? Stick to your guns, man.

 

NAPA here in az.
and the zmax has been around for like 70 years they just changed their name recently and the stuff looks and sounds to be good. i guess it absorbs into the metal internals of the engine which helps it stay lubricated at startup/prevents dry starts etc...

 

I watched a program on tv a while back were they were testing Z MAX against other aditives like pro long, and the Z MAX works and does what it says on the bottle, i would buy it and use it.

 

You guys actually believe their "unbiased" commercials???

Here's an interesting read for Z Max users or people that might be mislead to using ZMax. Do your research before dumping things into your engines.

http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/zmaxcomp.html


13. The CRC L38 test protocol, referenced in zMax advertisements, including, but not limited to, Exhibits 1 through 4, is a laboratory engine test protocol that has been accepted as an automotive industry standard only for purposes of measuring the bearing corrosion performance of motor oils. In February/March 1997, an independent laboratory performed two modified CRC L38 tests on behalf of Defendants -- one test on motor oil alone and the other on the same motor oil treated with zMax. In these tests, motor oil treated with zMax produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion than the motor oil alone (185.7 milligrams of bearing weight loss for the treated oil versus 74.1 milligrams for the untreated oil).

14. zMax advertisements, including, but not limited to Exhibits 1 through 4, falsely portray the two CRC L38 test reports as a single report prepared by an independent testing laboratory. Defendants have created a fabricated independent testing laboratory ?report? (which has a cover sheet from the testing laboratory and bears its letterhead on every written page) that edits out the bearing corrosion results and all other data that show a detriment from the use of zMax in the treated versus untreated motor oil CRC L38 tests. This fabricated report is shown in the infomercial, and the ?official laboratory results? -- similarly edited to remove data showing a detriment from the use of zMax -- are reproduced on the zMax website


18. Through the use of representations, testimonials, and statements contained in zMax advertisements, including, but not limited to, Exhibits 1 through 4, Defendants have represented, expressly or by implication, that the results of an industry-standard CRC L38 test conducted on zMax prove 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%.


19. In truth and in fact, the results of an industry-standard CRC L38 test conducted on zMax do not prove 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%.
20. Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraph 18 above were, and are, false and misleading and constitute a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. ? 45(a).

 

Simply because thats the only one I have tried (out of many) that have given me any kind of noticable results. I am interested in trying this BG stuff though. Trust me, I am sticking to my guns.

 

I hereby retract my original statement.