Teflon - Slick50 - Synlube + Oils & Additives

[Xcelplus]

My last answer to this question was raised by the moderators as insufficient... so lets try again.

We provide 3rd party testing from parties with no vested interests like the FAA.

However you asked for links to third party "sites" with no vested interests... which is something else again... which is why we suggested you to write to the testing authorities directly.

Have we simply misunderstood your question? Do you consider the independent tests on the site sufficient? Are you having trouble finding them?
We'll link directly if it helps... but you didn't mention any tests specifically.

I apologise if I have misunderstood the thrust of your question.

Originally Posted by theholycow

Xcelplus, can you provide links to 3rd party sites with no vested interest that can back up your claims?

[Jay2TheRescue]

I think what they were getting at is that you can link to any document on your own site, and say it originated anywhere you want to. Its another thing to link to a document on a site such as the FAA, FTC, consumer reports, JD Power, etc, that supports your claims.

[Xcelplus]

There's a whole section about it in the FAQ's

http://www.xcelplus.com.au/docs/jbishop1.htm

http://www.xcelplus.com.au/docs/false_ad.htm

There is also an interview with the inventor John Bishop in the Tests section under video's "Inteview with Xcelplus inventor (John Bishop)

http://www.xcelplus.com.au/tests.htm

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...14188878793857

I apologise for misunderstanding the question originally.

I did not wish to antagonise the moderators by posting links directly (which I felt was unfairly using the forum to advertise the product)... however the moderators have suggested we use direct links to clarify the issue.

Originally Posted by theholycow

Specifically, the one I quoted: "The original Slick-50 formula is now known as Xcelplus."

[theholycow]

^ Regarding the issue of offending us with links: Posting your own links is offensive. Posting links to well-known sites like epa.gov is encouraged.

Originally Posted by Xcelplus

My last answer to this question was raised by the moderators as insufficient... so lets try again.

We provide 3rd party testing from parties with no vested interests like the FAA.

However you asked for links to third party "sites" with no vested interests... which is something else again... which is why we suggested you to write to the testing authorities directly.

Have we simply misunderstood your question? Do you consider the independent tests on the site sufficient? Are you having trouble finding them?
We'll link directly if it helps... but you didn't mention any tests specifically.

I apologise if I have misunderstood the thrust of your question.

I'm trying to tell you what you'll need to help with your credibility. Most users on this site, including me, are very skeptical of anyone who comes here selling anything.

Instead of asking us to look on your web site, give us links to the third party tests on the third party web sites.

If you want people to write to the testing authorities, you're asking them to do work to find a reason to believe your claims. That is not an effective way to sell products. The burden of convincing people is on you.

[Xcelplus]

It seems to have been a misunderstanding on my part... and the question was really about the name... which the previous post should have clarified (an interview with the inventor is probably as good as it gets proof wise).

Your point is a reasonable one... but the fact is that FAA does not post any reports on it's site... and neither do most other testing organisations. However any of them should be willing to confirm that the reports are theirs.

:-)

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

I think what they were getting at is that you can link to any document on your own site, and say it originated anywhere you want to. Its another thing to link to a document on a site such as the FAA, FTC, consumer reports, JD Power, etc, that supports your claims.

[Xcelplus]

Thank you for clarifying which links you meant.

If the FAA had these documents on their site we would be happy to link to them. Unfortunately they don't publish such details... so we can't link to them.

Independent labs and government authorities have only a small number of their documents on the net.

Asking a person to do their own checking if they remain skeptical seems reasonable.

:-)

[QUOTE=theholycow;151193]^ Regarding the issue of offending us with links: Posting your own links is offensive. Posting links to well-known sites like epa.gov is encouraged.

QUOTE]

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Xcelplus

Asking a person to do their own checking if they remain skeptical seems reasonable.

It's reasonable when someone comes to you asking for help, but it's different when you come to someone wanting to sell them something.

[GasSavers_Erik]

Originally Posted by Xcelplus

As Xcelplus contains no PTFE (it was a gimick we used early on)

:-)

I admire your honesty about past sales practices.

So what gimmicks are you all using these days?

Seriously- has the % active ingredient of your product changed at all through the years?

[bowtieguy]

Xcelplus,

i did a search and came up w/ this...http://www.xcelplus.com/catalogs/automotive.htm

what are the differences in products besides price? for example, your link has a price of $99, and this one's price is $39 for the same engine additive(it seems). both claim to treat up to a 7 liter motor.

i'm too lazy to do a conversion, but yours is 300ml and the link i found is 24oz(2 12oz bottles).

[Jay2TheRescue]

I noticed that you linked to a US site, and Xcelplus was linking to an Australian site. Is the difference just the exchange rate between $US and $AU?