Mail Richard Chambers, Tuesday, March 29, 2011:
I have read your Internet pages with great interest, and on most points I can only agree with you. But to state that no product or device can bring any benefits is, I feel, going too far.
I have been selling PTFE products now for 22 years, mostly in the German-speaking world. Before I started, I had TUV tests done on the first one, Slick 50, which showed a fuel saving and also no environmentel problems with the exhaust. When Petrolon changed their formula, and the performance dropped off, I changed to another, then newer and much better product, and have been selling it successfully ever since in several countries in mainland Europe, under the name "SX-6000".
The difference to Slick 50 is that it uses PTFE with low density, while our product, SX-6000, since 1993, is the only one in the world which uses PTFE with high density. (see the table with the coefficients of friction of the coating substances.)
Both products have been through the oil industry's world-wide standard test, Sequence III E. Both "passed", in as much as the condition of the oil at the end of the extemely tough test was no worse than with any other successful test with oil alone, and on some points actually better. But both produced in the test a reduction in wear, Slick 50 then 57%, since the change in formula 42%, and our present product up to 88%.
Another difference is that I produce the product myself, using
concentrate from USA, but with carrier oils from a small high-quality German oil firm, suitable for the autobahns, which is certainly not he case with products produced in USA.
Oil degrading in use has been monitored be WearChack, and showed that in trucks the oil change intervals can be stretched to 2-3 times the normal. The fact that oil-burning on the road is halved does not please the oil companies either, but offers somthing for the environment.
Sequence III E results are effectively not attackable. We have used as our product slogan "You cann't drive with less friction" now for 18 years, and never been attacked for it. The oil companies have taken it up with us about other, much less important points in our advertising, but never this one, as they know it is true.
The Cranfield Institute did a five-year study on Slick 50 and concluded that it could be beneficially used in any mechanical system where it was advantageous to reduce the friction. The same applies to SX-6000, but more so.
Dry start tests show a reduction in battery loading of 20-25%.
A further university test, in a faculty which has made it its business to check out the claims of additives coming onto its national market (in one of the Baltic states), tested with only the motor being treated, and came consistently in three tests to 5% fuel saving - more we have never claimed. The professor said that in 10 years he had never before tested a product which had come anywhere near to its claimed performance. One result is that the main taxi firm in Riga has reduced it rates, as it has reduced its costs. The others are queueing-up.
Our lawyers got confirmation from Daimler that they had no technical ground to object to our product, and that negative statements made by, or attributed to, their "oil pope" have no validity as far as our product is concerned. (But they still prohibit its use in leased vehicles - presumably because of the resultant delay in the flow of spare parts business).
Gemany's top tuner of VW motors for racing treats all his engines, and has published his rolling road test results, which also confirm our product claims.
We also sell a device, with software, with which it is possible to evaluate the wear in a car's engine against a massive data base accurate to +/- 5000 km. Assuming that the motor has not been treated, that is. I bought my present car with alredy 70,000 km on the clock, and treated it at once. It now has 260,000 km., but our measurement system says less than 100,000. (This system is getting wide use against speedo "adjusters" in the second-hand car market.)
How many tests are required to make a product credible in your eyes ? I feel that I have done enough to present myself as responsible. And the practical side confirms the theory.
Would it also help to know that Toyota Japan has brought SX-6000 into its accessory programme ?
Certainly, you are right to go against the wild claims of the cowboys. I do it too, we have had over 40 injunctions against such in the last 10 years, But to take such a broad brush as you do ? Ours, while I of course claim it to be the best, is not the only one which gives some increase in fuel efficiency. Surely, if a product reduced fuel consumption by 5% (wirh gears treated too 6-7%), or with other products somewhat less, this small contribution to driving costs and to the environment should win some approval and not be bundled together with the rubbish.
Give thought please to why the car and oil companies restrict their attacks to PTFE products. If their reason for being against additives was really that they are no good, why do they not mention for instance products based on chlorinated paraffin ? These, so it was reported for a very short time, had been found by Daimler to produce dioxiines in the exhaust. But then the message disappeared again. The fact that, if such a product finds itself in the presence of condensed water, as so often in short-journey vehicles, the chlorine detaches itself from the paraffin and produced HCl, well known for its benefits in the presence of, particularly, aluminium motor blocks, was never mentioned. Such products are left in peace, with no mention in, for example, Daimler's lubrication instructions, which, in spite of our piece of paper from them, still warn against PTFE in general.
You mention conspiracy. Years ago, at the start, I contacted Daimler to feel for their reaction, and was told that if VW would do something,they would consider doing something too. A contact with VW produced the same answer. A tactic supplied by our unfavourite oil company, perhaps ?
Aside from friction reduction products, I have had similar experiences. I developed in the early 1990s a product which I called "LecWec", (a corruption of the German for "leak gone"), which is very effective in stopping oil leaks in any oil system, with any oil, where polymere oil seals are used. The success rate runs at over 99%, and we have had reports from customers who treated, for example, a power steering in 1995-6, in a car then 7-8 years old, telling us 10 years after their treatment that the unit is still dry. (It is also making in-roads into industrial maintenance.) You no doubt know what an exchange power steering unit costs. Our repair costs about £10. Journalists have, as with PTFE products in general, been bought to rubbish this product, and have tried to do so in the face of the fact that, with nearly 1 million bottles sold, we have never yet had a single problem reported - as our "virginal" product liability insurance can confirm.
Only products which threaten turnover are attacked. The last attack in LecWec came too late, as the product had by then gained acceptance not just with car owners, but also with workshops, where it is recognised that one cannot charge £1000 for a repair on a car wirth only £1200 without risking loosing that customer, and anyone else he might tell The obvious lies in this article convinced even more people that it must be good, and it gave our sales a good boost. We now sell it in 26 countries.
The second attachment ? Our family built cars in Belfast from shortly after one great uncle had designed the first Vauxhall. To earn my place in the family, I built my own car, which looked a bit different. So cars are "in my blood", not just a source of income.
Any more facts required. Then just ask.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Richard Chambers GmbH
...reibungsärmer fährt man nicht !
Tel: +49-89-903 56 38
Fax: +49-89-904 45 41
www.qmi.de / email@example.com
Dahlienweg 14, 85551 Heimstetten
GF: Richard Chambers
HR München B, 94285
There are a lot of comments to be found against additives.
There are a lot of additives which deserve such comments.
But not all.
We found a very well-written and detailed item under www.fuelsaving.info which, while making points fully valid when applied to rubbish products, of which there are more than enough, were so presented that they should be understood to apply to all additives which aim to reduce friction and wear, and so the running costs.
But some do just this, and, given the rising costs, and the environmental considerations too, we feel that activities which are aimed to reduce the acceptance of such products are not legitimate.
So we sent “Tony“, the author, our comments below.
To which he answered.
We then commented on his answers.
His answer to these was that he would reply in a few days, when he found time.
We are still waiting, now nearly three months.
- Mail "Richard",
Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 11:20 AM
- Mail "Tony",
Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 20:45 PM
- Mail "Richard",
Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 9:42 AM
- Mail "Tony",
Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 17:44 PM
Since then we have no further answer of "Tony" ...