Cerma engine treatment + turbo treatment - Does it actually work?

[jimlloyd40]

There's how it's advertised, and how it may achieve any result at all. Those are two different scenarios entirely.

It must necessarily alter viscosity. It is impossible for that not to occur. Likewise, it cannot "coat" a surface and maintain that coating simply by being poured into an engine.

If the engine was freshly assembled, having never been oiled, it would be possible; but only temporarily.

Their claims are not possible. If it's doing anything at all, it has to be altering the viscosity or lubricity of the oil itself. From a perspective of generous objectivity, that is the maximum amount of rope they can be given.

It does not alter viscosity period. It coats surfaces reducing friction. Don't buy it if you think it doesn't work.

 

[dosjockey]

I'm not going to argue about whether or not pouring a fluid with one viscosity into another fluid with a different viscosity will alter the viscosity of that second fluid.

That's like arguing in regard to whether or not placing one's hand into a fire for five minutes will cause a burn. The question was whether or not it works.

It is impossible for it to function as advertised. I've explained why, and attempted to give people who believe they've seen a result an explanation for why a change may have taken place.

If that's not good enough, so be it.

 

[jimlloyd40]

I'm not going to argue about whether or not pouring a fluid with one viscosity into another fluid with a different viscosity will alter the viscosity of that second fluid.

That's like arguing in regard to whether or not placing one's hand into a fire for five minutes will cause a burn. The question was whether or not it works.

It is impossible for it to function as advertised. I've explained why, and attempted to give people who believe they've seen a result an explanation for why a change may have taken place.

If that's not good enough, so be it.

Your analogy with fire is ridiculous. The viscosity of the engine treatment looks like it pours the same as the oil I used. It's only 2 ounces so it can't possibly alter viscosity. It treats surfaces by adhering to them and doesn't remain in suspension. Not to mention you can't debate the merits of a product you haven't used just due to your skepticism. I have used the product and can attest for the efficacy of it in two different cars. Find someone who has used it and agrees with you.

 

[cb1111]

Children, children....

Let's not continue down this road.

These kinds of products have been around for years and many of them give an initial improvement. Just like Marvel Mystery Oil, you'll note an immediate improvement of sorts that may go away just as quickly.

Think of all of the people that swear by a cold air intake adding lots of HP. We know from dyno runs that most CAIs add virtually no power (and in many cases actually reduce power), but we think they add power because they are louder.

Jim believes (and I believe him) that this stuff has worked for him. I don't know how it could work, but I believe that he believes that it works.

What is there to argue about?

 

[dosjockey]

Children, children....

Let's not continue down this road.

These kinds of products have been around for years and many of them give an initial improvement. Just like Marvel Mystery Oil, you'll note an immediate improvement of sorts that may go away just as quickly.

Think of all of the people that swear by a cold air intake adding lots of HP. We know from dyno runs that most CAIs add virtually no power (and in many cases actually reduce power), but we think they add power because they are louder.

Jim believes (and I believe him) that this stuff has worked for him. I don't know how it could work, but I believe that he believes that it works.

What is there to argue about?

Nothing. I'm not going to argue with him.

I just showed up here, and I'm not going to waste anyone's time with a nonsensical discussion.

My point has been made, already, and there's an ignore function for a reason.

 

[jimlloyd40]

Children, children....

Let's not continue down this road.

These kinds of products have been around for years and many of them give an initial improvement. Just like Marvel Mystery Oil, you'll note an immediate improvement of sorts that may go away just as quickly.

Think of all of the people that swear by a cold air intake adding lots of HP. We know from dyno runs that most CAIs add virtually no power (and in many cases actually reduce power), but we think they add power because they are louder.

Jim believes (and I believe him) that this stuff has worked for him. I don't know how it could work, but I believe that he believes that it works.

What is there to argue about?

You're correct. I was just arguing with him because he hasn't used the product and I have so it's senseless for him to argue about it. How can anyone say something doesn't work if they haven't tried it or known someone who has?

 

[jimlloyd40]

Nothing. I'm not going to argue with him.

I just showed up here, and I'm not going to waste anyone's time with a nonsensical discussion.

My point has been made, already, and there's an ignore function for a reason.

God idea not tho waste time arguing about a product you haven't used. Duh.

 

[cb1111]

Nothing. I'm not going to argue with him.

I just showed up here, and I'm not going to waste anyone's time with a nonsensical discussion.

My point has been made, already, and there's an ignore function for a reason.

Ignoring Jim because you don't agree with him on this point says much about you. I've found Jim to usually have good points. But hey, it is your loss.

 

[dosjockey]

Ignoring Jim because you don't agree with him on this point says much about you. I've found Jim to usually have good points. But hey, it is your loss.

It's not about what I "agree" with. This is NOT a matter of opinion. Feelings don't count in reality.

If he wants to live in fantasy land, that's his decision; but so long as I'm breathing, I won't let him cause others to rip themselves off without at least giving my input.

I gave him an out to take, and instead of taking it; more forgiving than the out everyone else has tried to give, he responded with foolishness and an argumentative tone.

He's on ignore so we don't piss all over this thread, and so I don't accidentally fall for one of his suggestions in the future once I've forgotten his name. Not worth listening to if this is the extent of his analytical ability.

I don't have to shave my balls with a chainsaw to know it's not a good idea. I don't need a calculator to know that 2+2=4.

This is the last I will speak of him unless I decide otherwise at a later date for some reason. If someone else wants to explore the topic in the real universe we all live in, I'm game; but I won't be party to foolishness.

 

[seanmcd1]

dosjockey relax. You are basically going nuts because you have made a claim (which actually makes it sounds like you have no idea what this product does) and you feel it's a fact, and you're getting mad if someone says you're wrong. Stop it.

 

[dosjockey]

dosjockey relax. You are basically going nuts because you have made a claim (which actually makes it sounds like you have no idea what this product does) and you feel it's a fact, and you're getting mad if someone says you're wrong. Stop it.

I know precisely what this product doesn't do, because it cannot possibly do it. Them's the rules, man. I don't make them.

I'm not mad at all. This is simply the way I type. I have zero personality in text, and my sentence construction is cold.

 

[jimlloyd40]

I'm still at a loss how someone can claim definitively that something doesn't work when the person hasn't tried the product. That's just common sense. And to argue with someone who has used the product and can test to the efficacy of it is just stupid. I certainly understand the skepticism. Lots of products make these types of claims and they don't work. This product just happens to work. Why the hell would I purchase it for two different cars if it didn't work? When I learned about it on the Veloster forum I was skeptical but took a chance and am very happy with it. I don't enjoy blowing money on useless products anymore than anyone else. I have purchased products that don't work as advertised and when I get a product that does I promote it.

 

[Navi]

I know precisely what this product doesn't do, because it cannot possibly do it. Them's the rules, man. I don't make them.

I'm not mad at all. This is simply the way I type. I have zero personality in text, and my sentence construction is cold.

have you got any oil analysis from blackstone, caterpillar or amsoil? Show us the proof.

 

[dosjockey]

have you got any oil analysis from blackstone, caterpillar or amsoil? Show us the proof.

Irrelevant.

You're telling me I can't know if it's possible for a dollar store light bulb to support the Sphinx without cracking, simply because I haven't tried.

The fundamentals of reality prevent that product from performing as advertised. Period. End of that story.

The fundamentals of economy, application, and production also prevent that product from performing as advertised. Period. End of that story.

I said it could have an effect; the very effect described, as a viscosity or lubricity modifier. That was in response to someone who compared the sound of their engine against web-based recordings and descriptions of engine sounds. I demonstrated and explained in plain English why such recordings are not useful, in that regard; and offered an alternative solution that would allow his experience to be valid; a perfectly reasonable and logical solution.

My offering of an option that allows such an event was incredibly generous, at the very worst. I'm saying that while it certainly can't perform in the manner advertised, it is indeed possible that it's producing that effect, and provided an alternate function that is not impossible. I'm agreeing that he may have genuinely observed a difference; but not for the same reasons the company suggests. I called them on their marketing; not his experience.

The immediate and overtly defensive response was that it in no way alters viscosity, which is, incidentally, not accurate; and following that a further assertion of an impossibility.

I attempted one further interpretation in good humor. It was disregarded in a trolling and difficult manner. I then decided to disengage communication after it looked like someone else might be dragged in, and pointed it out in the hopes he would see I was trying to keep this conversation civil. Both points had been made, and any further exploration of that contention would derail the thread. It appears I was correct.

There is no way to tell someone the sky is blue when they are convinced there is no sky. It is an impossible argument.

Thousands of years of history have already proven my contentions. I need type no more in explanation to remain correct; and I think you'll find, eventually, that more than a few people will back me up on this, even if I'm the new guy.

 

[anotero]

I wonder how long before Jay locks this thread.