307/311 13 Oct 97  20:36:51
From:   Jim Dunmyer
Subj:   additives 5/6
Part 5

Testimonial Hype vs. Scientific Analysis

   In general, most producers of oil additives rely on personal
"testimonials" to advertise and promote their products. A typical print
advertisement will be one or more letters from a satisfied customer
stating something like, "I have used Brand X in my engine for 2 years and
50,000 miles and it runs smoother and gets better gas mileage than ever
before. I love this product and would recommend it to anyone."

   Such evidence is referred to as "anecdotal" and is most commonly used
to promote such things as miracle weight loss diets and astrology.

   Whenever I see one of these ads I am reminded of a stunt played out
several years ago by Allen Funt of "Candid Camera" that clearly
demonstrated the side of human nature that makes such advertising
possible.

   With cameras in full view, fake "product demonstrators" would offer
people passing through a grocery store the opportunity to taste-test a
"new soft drink." What the victims didn't know was that they were being
given a horrendous concoction of castor oil, garlic juice, tabasco sauce
and several other foul-tasting ingredients. After taking a nice, big
swallow, as instructed by the demonstrators, the unwitting victims
provided huge laughs for the audience by desperately trying to conceal
their anguish and disgust. Some literally turned away from the cameras
and spit the offending potion on the floor.

   The fascinating part came when about one out of four of the victims
would actually turn back to the cameras and proclaim the new drink was
"Great" or "Unique" or, in several cases, "One of
the best things I've
ever tasted!" Go figure.

   The point is, compiling "personal testimonials" for a product is one
of the easiest things an advertising company can do - and one of the
safest, too. You see, as long as they are only expressing some one else's
personal opinion, they don't have to prove a thing! It's just an opinion,
and needs no basis in fact whatsoever.

   On the other hand, there has been documented, careful scientific
analysis done on numerous oil additives by accredited institutions and
researchers.

   For example:

   Avco Lycoming, a major manufacturer of aircraft engines, states, "We
have tried every additive we could find on the market, and they are all
worthless."

   Briggs and Stratton, renowned builders of some of the most durable
engines in the world, says in their report on engine oil additives, "They
do not appear to offer any benefits."

   North Dakota State University conducted tests on oil additives and
said in their report, "The theory sounds good - the only problem is that
the products simply don't work."

   And finally, Ed Hackett, chemist at the University of Nevada Desert
Research Center, says, "Oil additives should not be used. The oil
companies have gone to great lengths to develop an additive package that
meets the vehicle's requirements. If you add anything to this oil you may
upset the balance and prevent the oil from performing to specification."

   Petrolon, Inc., of Houston, Texas, makers of Petrolon and producers of
at least a dozen other lubrication products containing PTFE, including
Slick 50 and Slick 30 Motorcycle Formula, claim that, "Multiple tests by
independent laboratories have shown that when properly applied to an
automotive engine, Slick 50 Engine Formula reduces wear on engine parts.
Test results have shown that Slick 50 treated engines sustained 50
percent less wear than test engines run with premium motor oil alone."

   Sounds pretty convincing, doesn't it?

   The problem is, Petrolon and the other oil additive companies that
claim "scientific evidence" from "independent
laboratories," all refuse
to identify the laboratories that conducted the tests or the criteria
under which the tests were conducted. They claim they are "contractually
bound" by the laboratories to not reveal their identities.

   In addition, the claim of "50 percent less wear" has never been proven
on anything approaching a long-term basis. Typical examples used to
support the additive makers' claims involve engines run from 100 to 200
hours after treatment, during which time the amount of wear particles in
the oil decreased. While this has proven to be true in some cases, it has
also been proven that after 400 to 500 hours of running the test engines
invariably reverted to producing just as many wear particles as before
treatment, and in some cases, even more.

   No matter what the additive makers would like you to believe, nothing
has been proven to stop normal engine wear.

   You will note that all of the research facilities quoted in this
article are clearly identified. They have no problem with making their
findings public. You will also note that virtually all of their findings
about oil additives are negative. That's not because we wanted to give a
biased report against oil additives - it's because we couldn't find a
single laboratory, engine manufacturer or independent research facility
who would make a public claim, with their name attached to it, that any
of the additives were actually beneficial to an engine. The conclusion
seems inescapable.

   As a final note on advertising hype versus the real world, we saw a
television ad the other night for Slick 50 oil additive. The ad
encouraged people to buy their product on the basis of the fact that,
"Over 14 million Americans have tried Slick 50!" Great. We're sure you
could just as easily say, "Over 14 million Americans have smoked
cigarettes!"-but is that really any reason for you to try it? Of course
not, because you've seen the scientific evidence of the harm it can do.
The exact same principle applies here.



     M.

--- Msged/386 TE 06 (pre)