The performance benefits of aftermarket additives are mostly unsubstantiated.
AMSOIL has long discouraged motorists from using any kind of aftermarket lubricant additive. After all, AMSOIL Synthetic Lubricants use the finest quality synthetic basestocks and additive systems. In the “Questions and Answers About AMSOIL synthetic Motor Oils” brochure, in response to the question “Should oil additives or aftermarket products be added to AMSOIL motor oils?” it states, “No, you don’t need them. AMSOIL motor oils are formulated under the strictest quality control standards to provide superior lubrication performance. Additives cost money and only detract from the quality of AMSOIL motor oils.”
A perfect example of why AMSOIL discourages use of aftermarket additives is the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recent lawsuit against zMax auto additives, seeking to halt false and misleading advertising and gain refunds for consumers who purchased the products. According to the FTC, the enhanced performance benefits of zMax claims its products provide are totally unsubstantiated, and in the same tests cited to support performance claims, motor oil treated with zMax actually produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion than motor oil by itself. They further allege that the three different zMax products – an engine additive, a fuel line additive and a transmission additive – are nothing more than tinted mineral oil.
The complaint states that since at least May of 1999, zMax has aired infomercials promoting its “Power System,” a $39 package of three additives to be used in the engine, fuel line and transmission of automobiles. The infomercials are quite convincing, even going as far as featuring testimonials from various consumers and race car drivers making such claims 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 advertising claims “zMax with LinKite has the scientific, CRC L38 proof it takes your car to the Max!” and “Why zMax Works – Cuts carbon buildup on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on piston skirts 60%; 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.”
The CRC L38 test is a standard auto industry test which measures the bearing corrosion protection properties of motor oils. According to the complaint, in early 1997 an independent testing facility performed two CRC L38 tests of the zMax products. The results showed motor oil treated with the zMax additives produced more than double the bearing corrosion as motor oil alone. According to the FTC, the defendants eliminated the bearing corrosion results, as well as all other negative results, to produce one “report” from the two sets of tests, using this “report” in its infomercials on its website.
The FTC charge alleges that zMax did not possess and rely on reasonable substantiation for the following product claims:
- Increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10%
- Reduces engine wear
- Reduces or eliminates engine wear at startup
- Reduces engine corrosion
- Extends engine life
- Reduces emissions
They also allege that the defendants falsely represent that the results of the CRC L38 test 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%
- Cuts carbon build-up on valve stems by 66%
Finally, the FTC charges that zMax does not have substantiation for the representation that the testimonials and endorsements shown in zMax advertising are “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 lawsuit against zMax is the latest in a long line of FTC charges against auto additive manufacturers. The FTC has previously halted allegedly deceptive advertising by the markets of Dura Lube, Motor Up, Prolong, Valvoline, Slick 50, STP and other major brands of engine treatment systems.
Not directly oil related, the FTC has also sued the marketers of the Super FuelMAX automotive fuel-line magnet, advertised as providing dramatic fuel-saving and emissions-reducing benefits. They have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that their claims were unsubstantiated. The settlement would bar the Gadget Universe catalog and its CEO from misrepresenting the actual benefits or efficacy of any supposedly fuel-saving or emissions-reducing products for motor vehicles. It would also prohibit misrepresentations about testimonials, endorsements, tests, or research.
According to the FTC complaint, Esrim Ve Sheva Holding Corp., doing business as Gadget Universe, and its CEO, Alexander Elnekaveh, advertised and sold Super FuelMAX through catalog sales and on their Internet site. Advertising for the device claimed, "Here's one the big oil companies don't want you to know about," "SAVE UP TO 27% ON GAS," and "The Super FuelMAX . . . clamps onto my fuel line, and two powerful neodymium conductors use the scientific principal of magnetic resonance to give me better fuel burn. A certified EPA laboratory reports an amazing 27% in increased mileage and 42% reduction in harmful pollutants." Graphics in the ads showed unruly fuel molecules lining up in straight columns and rows after passing through the Super FuelMAX. The FTC alleged that the ads misrepresented that Super FuelMAX:
- causes fuel molecules to line up in straight columns and rows;
- improves fuel burn through magnetic resonance;
- reduces fuel consumption;
- reduces fuel consumption by 27 percent or up to 27 percent;
- reduces harmful emissions or pollutants; and
- reduces harmful emissions or pollutants by 42 percent or up to 40 percent.
- The FTC alleges that the respondents did not possess or rely on reasonable substantiation for the claims.
The complaint also alleges that the respondents falsely represented that tests performed at a certified EPA laboratory prove that Super FuelMAX:
- increases mileage by 27 percent; and
- reduces harmful pollutants by 42 percent.
Finally, the FTC charged that ads for Super FuelMAX featuring a testimonial endorsing the product did not reflect the individual's actual experience with the product or the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use the product. Therefore, the FTC complaint said, the representations concerning the testimonial were false or misleading.
I'm not saying AMSOIL is beyond question. I don't know for sure, but it is my guess that with the claims AMSOIL makes about extended oil drain and increased performance that someone, at some time, has investigated AMSOIL. But I did a search at the FTC web site on "AMSOIL" and "synthetic motor oil" came up with zero matches. I am quite comfortable with AMSOIL's means of proving their products through independent lab testing (as with the four-ball wear test that is on each and every Series 2000 and 3000 Motor Oil quart bottle, the results are confirmed by outside independent labs). Actually, with AMSOIL's habit of naming brand names, the FTC is probably their least worry. It is more likely that, if AMSOIL's claims were false or misleading, the Mobils, Pennzoils and others to which AMSOIL publishes it's comparisons would be dragging AMSOIL into court all over the place. But you can't complain if what AMSOIL represents is backed up by independent testing and adequate field trials.
