Please can you point us towards peer reviewed, published, independant testing, and verification of your claims?
|
|
When you say "advertising authorities" do you mean the ASA? They publish their adjudications so it would be interesting to see what they have said. I can't locate one for "Prolong" but perhaps another name has been used?
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to an article written about Prolong that appeared in Racecar Engineering, that I have put up on our website at the following link www.prolong-uk.com/RCEV16N11_Prolong.pdf The article was written only after all the mentioned independent testing and research had been supplied and reviewed. No advertising accompanied the article. It offers a considered overview of how the core technology behind our technology works, and may be a good starting point to stimulate further enquiries which I will be happy to address, but I hope this is of interest.
|
I have put up on our website at the following link
Thank you, but, a glossy magazine article is not anywhere near enough. I am asking for serious independant evidence, published in peer reviewed journals. Then, I might begin to take the claims seriously.
|
|
|
|
So, no ASA adjudication? Thats the only UK authority SFAIK.
|
|
|
|
I am sorry you feel that The International Journal Racecar Engineering, is not qualified to have adequately researched and reviewed the independent research they refer to in this article, I thought that it would be a good starting point as the author did spend many months reviewing the reports, but due to the file size of the reports themselves they are not up on the internet, but should anyone wish for us to post these to them we would be happy to do this if you would put an enquiry through our website, from wich we would then be able to stick a CD-ROM in the post to you, please go to www.prolong-uk.com/new/forms/contact_form.html
|
>>I am sorry you feel that The International Journal Racecar Engineering, ...
Despite the plausible name, it is just a magazine.
Compare and contrast:
journals.pepublishing.com/content/119772
A respected journal on engine technology. Look at the lack of links inviting advertisers. Look at the links on the right about the editorial board, and the refereeing process known as peer review.
Looking more closely at the members of the editorial board;
journals.pepublishing.com/jer/editorial-board.mpx
You find a mixture of respected academics and car industry engineers. The articles published in such a journal have a level of credibility on an entirely different level to those published in magazines.
Contrast this with;
www.racecar-engineering.com/
and
www.racecar-engineering.com/aboutus.html
>>I thought that it would be a good starting point as the author did spend many months reviewing the reports, but due to the file size of the reports themselves
It's a very reasonable starting point, but, it falls far short of being credible. If you have some links to papers published in peer reviewed journals, please post them up.
Edited by Number_Cruncher on 03/06/2009 at 15:05
|
Mike,
I just had a look at the site and found the following in the exclusions to the oil guarantee - seemingly one of the many exclusions to a claim.
"failure of a part/component is due to normal wear (gradual reduction in operating performance),"
You state "Our oils meet and exceed all OEMs standards," - the site just seems to say "recommended" with no reference to who is doing the recommending
Can you post the full list?
Edited by oilrag on 03/06/2009 at 18:39
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the recommendation, we will be submitting our research and testing to Professor C Arcoumanis, whom I am sure will find it as interesting as those who are already using it within motorsport and other arenas of engineering where extreme pressure lubrication technology is of interest. I will update on any developments from this side, but as stated before we are more than happy to supply copies of the independent research and testing, to anyone who feels it of interest, as it cost Prolong in excess of $10 million in total to produce, so we may as well get our monies worth out of it, just request this through our websites enquiry form
|
>>we will be submitting our research and testing to Professor C Arcoumanis,
I don't think that's necessarily the best journal for you to submit your work to, I simply posted it as one example of a respectable peer reviewed journal.
I suspect your work might be better placed in a tribology journal, or possible an Automotive Engineering Journal.
|
PM. You stated "I would like to state that, just as you did, the advertising authorities looked upon our claims with the same cynicism and investigated them over an 18 month period, with the approval given not being a decision they took lightly."
I believe the "authorities" you refer to are the FTC. They have no remit over here, and indeed they required Prolong Superoil to desist from claims that were unsubstantiated.
Would you care to clarify whether the UK Advertising Standards Authority has adjudicated or commented on your claims?
|
You seem to have missed the question I posted above Mike - here it is again - slightly altered..
You state "Our oils meet and exceed all OEMs standards," - the site just seems to say "recommended" with no reference to who is doing the recommending
1)Who is recommending?
2) Can you post the full list - of the OEM standards (and API & ACEA) that the oil actually *meets*?
Sorry about posting again - but it seems a simple request to me. - if rather concrete and precise in the nature of the information requested.
|
No independant tests, even on web site. I smell a snake...
This from the FTC web site:
Prolong Super Lubricants Settles FTC Charges
Performance Claims for Motor Oil Additive Were Unsubstantiated
Prolong Super Lubricants, Inc., marketer of one of the largest selling motor oil additives sold in the U. S., has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the firm made unsubstantiated claims for its automobile motor oil additive, Prolong Engine Treatment Concentrate (ETC). Prolong Super Lubricants, Inc. is based in Irvine, California.
The complaint detailing the charges alleges that Prolong made unsubstantiated claims that compared to motor oil alone, Prolong ETC:
* reduces engine wear at start-up; and
* extends the duration of engine life.
The complaint also alleges that Prolong made unsubstantiated claims that ETC:
* reduces corrosion in engines; and
* protects against engine breakdowns.
The complaint further alleges Prolong made unsubstantiated claims that:
* benefits that may be achieved by using Prolong ETC in race cars or under racing conditions can be achieved in ordinary automobiles in conventional use; and
* testimonials and endorsements of consumers made in advertising reflected the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use Prolong.
This settlement is the latest in a series of FTC law-enforcement initiatives targeting claims made by engine treatment manufacturers. The Commission recently charged the marketers of Dura Lube and Motor Up with making unsubstantiated claims for their brands of motor oil additives. Those complaints are awaiting administrative trial. The FTC previously halted allegedly deceptive advertising by the marketers of Valvoline, Slick 50, and STP, other major brands of engine treatment products.
The Prolong settlement would require scientific substantiation for a broad range of claims relating to Prolong ETC, or any other product sold for use in an automobile, relating to engine-wear reduction, engine-life extension, corrosion reduction, protection against engine breakdown, or racing benefits being achievable in ordinary driving. The settlement would also require substantiation for claims made for any product marketed by Prolong Super Lubricants, relating to the product's performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use.
In addition, the order would bar misrepresentations relating to tests, studies or research, and would bar misleading demonstrations, pictures, experiments or tests relating to any product's features, superiority or comparability. If Prolong employs user testimonials or endorsements in promotional material in the future to depict typical consumer experience with any product, it would be required to have scientific substantiation for the representation, or disclose what results ordinary consumers could expect to achieve, and the applicability of the endorser's experience. Finally, the settlement contains certain administrative record keeping and reporting provisions to allow the agency to monitor compliance.
The Commission vote to accept the proposed settlement was 4-0, with Commissioner Orson Swindle concurring in part and dissenting in part. In his statement, Commissioner Swindle said,
" I support the provisions in the proposed order prohibiting Prolong from making . . . claims in the future without adequate substantiation. The consent agreement, however, also contains provisions prohibiting Prolong, in connection with the sale of any product, from misrepresenting the existence or results of tests and from misrepresenting that a demonstration confirms the benefits of a product. While firms should not misrepresent the existence or results of tests or demonstrations, it is inappropriate to include specific establishment and demonstration requirements as remedies in an order without corresponding complaint allegations. In this case, and in others from the recent past, there is a troubling lack of symmetry between the complaint and the order."
An announcement regarding the proposed consent agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
|
Fact
Mike has stated "Our oils meet and exceed all OEMs standards,"
It`s a fact - that the above statement was posted - now lets see the evidence to substantiate it.
Sorry to bang on about this - but if the question is ignored (again) people may well wish draw their own conclusions.
Edited by oilrag on 04/06/2009 at 07:50
|
I apologise for the delay in responding to this thread, and yes the request is a simple one, although the answer is long as there are so many standards out there, and by the end of writing this email there may be newer ones. The fact of the matter is that all our oils are produced and blended with formulas constantly being updated to meet every changing standard, again if you require more specifics on a particular variety of oil we are happy to do that, but an example of the standards our 20w50 meets is as follows:MIL-L-46152 E Caterpillar TO-2 & TO-3 Daimler-Benz 227.0/227.1/227.5/228.1/229.1
Allison C-4 MIL-L-2104E Volvo VDS
TBN 9.2 European CCMC Sequence D4/G4/PD2
ACEA E2 (2007) ACEA E2 (2004) ACEA E2/B3/A2 (2002)
MB 228.1/229.1 MAN 271 API CH-4/CG-4/CF-4/CF/CF-2/SJ
MTU Type 1 Mack EO-M Plus Renualt RD/RD-2
CES 20071/20076 CAT ECF-1-a ZFTE-ML 07C
We do also produce the varying VAG oils, and can actually blend any spec of oil that is required upon request.
If I understand correctly, on the comment regarding as recommended by your manufacturer - this is only refering to the service intervals, i.e. how often you need to change your oil, requesting that people continue to replace their oil at regular intervals, as those recommended by their manufacturer, which I am sure you will agree is a reasonable request.
To answer the statement regarding the FTC, this was any action launched by the FTC back in 1999, in which they stated Prolong had made claims that were unsubstantiated by independent scientific testing, and at the time this action was brought against Prolong they did cease marketing until they had adequately shown the FTC the testing to prove all the statements used. Prolong did not have to change any of their marketing, and since the action, which was over 10 years ago now, were able to trademark and market as the world?s most powerful oil. The findings from the FTC action taken can be seen here neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/prodecis.html or by typing Prolong FTC Decision into Google, in which it describes how the terms of the agreement Prolong have entered into with 100% compliance, stating that Prolong agree not to make any statement declaring our products offer any kind of benefit to an engine without prior scientific evidence to support these facts beforehand. Essentially Prolong have been subjected to and come under more scrutiny than most companies in their time, and yet are still able to market and operate using some very bold statements, unlike some better known brands over here, who were in fact fined considerable amounts of money, in similar actions. But, yes it is true that the FTC has no jurisdiction over here, and as such played no part in the approval of our advert over here, although the independent scientific testing that was produced and shown to the FTC action, did form part of the approval process that was undergone, although by no means was not enough on it's own and we had to undergo again a considerable process over here to get clearance to air the advert, and get the clock numbers required.
The bottom line on all this is that Prolong does genuinely offer significant performance benefits when compared to all the competition that is out there, has stated this fact on many occasions over a considerable period of time, and as such has been well and truly through the verification treadmill, with going to air on British Television declaring itself as the world's most powerful oil, only being possible due to the combination of many years of work
Edited by Prolong Mike on 04/06/2009 at 11:05
|
as such has been well and truly through the verification treadmill >>
Well, then post details of the verification certificates. Dates, Qualifications of the verifier, Names of Authority(ies) that verified your claims, etc.
Give us links, reference numbers, names, email addresses, postal addresses, telephone numbers of the certifying bodies.
|
although the independent scientific testing that was produced and shown to the FTC action did form part of the approval process that was undergone although by no means was not enough on it's own and we had to undergo again a considerable process over here to get
>>
This is very woolly. Where is the evidence?
|
|
I must say that I feel a little sorry for Prolong Mike. At least here is someone from the company who is willing to respond to this forum. OK so you maybe don't like his answers or don't trust the product- well don't buy the damn stuff. If it is being misrepresented then Trading Standards or the advertising watchdog will destroy the product but at least thank the guy for having the decency to respond a number of times. Quite honestly if I was in such a position as Mike I wouldn't bother to respond any further to this forum. Let me reverse the situation, can any of you guys PROVE that this product doesn't work. Didn't think so.
|
|
Yes - This is the proverbial Lions' Den - have some respect !
|
>>can any of you guys PROVE that this product doesn't work
But, we aren't selling the product, Prolong Mike *is* - the onus is not on us to prove anything.
It's perfectly fair and reasonable to ask a company whose products you might pour into your engine to demonstrate that their product has been properly tested.
|
|
I gotta say, i can remember a forte guy coming round years ago and telling us about the cases of loads of oil additives and other oils etc being done by the FTC and being charged millions etc. It has to be said, if Prolong wasnt screwed and then had their slogans approved like the worlds most powerful oil, that IS saying something and not to be sniffed at. The FTC would have had it independantly tested up to the eyeballs looking for a way to screw them and they would have the best guys and facilities to do it. If Prolong doesnt ave any evidence that it does this that or whatever, how do you (the forum-commandos) on this site think they fooled the FTC and got away with it? Bear in mind that, presumably, independant evidence is what the FTC were looking for? It/you arent making any sense. 'I want emails, addresses, verifications, certificates'- listen to how mental you sound! Plus, this is a really boring topic anyway. I agree with the guy above, be polite, you are just looking silly
|
>>I gotta say
Welcome to the forum.
|
Let me reverse the situation can any of you guys PROVE that this product doesn't work. Didn't think so.
Sorry, I do not agree.
This is an area with a long history of dubious claims. If his product does what it says on the advertising, then I will be first in the queue to buy the lubricant. I would love to buy a product that does all he claims.
The claims are easy to prove by independant testing, let's see the evidence first.
100,000 miles is nothing for a modern engine, if the lube is 80% more efficient, then why is the guarantee not 800,000 miles?
Edited by smokie on 04/06/2009 at 19:16
|
Moped, for me your post came dangerously close to requiring an edit to remove insinuation of fraud by Prolong. Another mod may decide that I have been too lax.
UPDATE: They did, so the offending bits have been snipped
Anyway, would all Backroomers please take care to not make potentially libellous statements, as not only would you suffer any consequences but the Backroom may too.
smokie, Moderator
Edited by smokie on 04/06/2009 at 19:20
|
I apologise if I broke the rules of the forum.
However, claims have been made about a product that is poured into an engine. Maybe the product does no harm. Maybe the product does have benifets. Maybe the product will harm the engine.
All I am asking for is evidence that the product works. So far this has not been produced.
Apology not necessary, but would all please remember that they have personal liability for their posts. For details see the Welcome thread at the top of the Discussion forum. smokie, Moderator
Edited by smokie on 04/06/2009 at 18:54
|
100 000 miles is nothing for a modern engine if the lube is 80% more efficient then why is the guarantee not 800 000 miles?
Because that would be 800% more efficient.
180,000 miles is 80% more and even that is easily achievable on modern engines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prolong Mike I would love to try your products but as a pensioner I just couldnt afford to right now...for servicing I require 5 different oils plus at least 3 additives at 3000 mile service intervals !!!
This is lay-up month for me...servicing, refits, MOT and Tax, so I have been studying up on oils and additives in order to smooth up a couple of things I am not happy with, mainly the gearbox and the very hot running of the engine as standard.
Many of my fellow trailblazers and rockcrawlers swear by Royal Purple but I had come down on the side of Fuchs products when I stumbled across Prolong.
Do you have any US Jeepers links that swear by or use your products (Clubs or individuals )?
btw its a highly modified 99 TJ 4 Liter...yes I would love to get a 1.5 mpg increase lol -)) thats a full 10%.... Rob
|
>>Prolong Mike I would love to try your products...
Welcome to the forum.
|
|
|
|
|
