Tufoil is same as Slick 50???
Sandman
slick 50 and similar products are alot of hype more than anything else. if
you really wanna do something to give your truck long life, change your oil
and filter every 3000 miles.
Dane wrote in message
<01bd7a26$afac6a20$b147...@SpeedDemon.txdirect.net>...
>
>
> I checked out the Tufoil website...it seems to me that this stuff is more
>or less the same as Slick 50...it's a PTFE based additive. Anyone have any
>further info???
>
Joe
According to CR (consumer reports) they are all SNAKE oil.
Joe
Dane
bumologist
In article <01bd7a26$afac6a20$b147...@SpeedDemon.txdirect.net>,
la...@spambuster.txdirect.net says...
>
>
> I checked out the Tufoil website...it seems to me that this stuff is more
> or less the same as Slick 50...it's a PTFE based additive. Anyone have any
> further info???
>
it doesn't do anything,others swear by it....
I had a 77 Power Wagon,it was a piece of junk,but I got almost 2 MPG
increase after I started using it in both the engine and transfer case.I
had to reset the idle after the Tufoil "soaked in",twice.It kept speeding
up.I have used it in every vehicle I've owned since then....
barry
Light, Ed
Tufoil is probably much better than Slick 50. I seem to remember that
slick 50 was one of the ones that Tufoil totally beat in an endurance
test where a load was put on a spinning bearing.
Tufoil has some extra ingredients over the basic teflon.
--
Best wishes!
_________________
Ed Light, Eureka, CA, USA
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
The Mind Control Forum - http://www.mk.net/~mcf
Resisting the ongoing covert mind control takeover
m...@mk.net
Unknown Heroes - http://www.mk.net/~mcf/heroes
Noncooperation in the Military
her...@jps.net
Light, Ed
>
> It's amazing to me that people even discuss this snake oil, given
> the vast body of research which refutes all of the advertising
> claims of this stuff. (Cummins, Chrysler, etc.).
I went to Cummins to see if Tufoil voided their warrantee, and, no
it doesn't. That's in the big rigs.
If I stopped using it in my (gas) Dear Old Dependable Good Engine
DODGE it would develop a slow idle,
heat up 10 degrees, and get 20% worse mileage.
See????
Light, Ed
HAFKNOT wrote:
>
> You are correct in stating Tufoil&Slick 50 are the same ripoff pretty slick
> eh?As the PTFE only bonds to your wallet when you buy it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do you know? Intuition?
Tufoil reduced temperature 10 deg. on the gauge in a slant six and a
360,
forcing idle adjustment as the engine began to race.
Is that real? Yeth. Try it yourself, you'll see. Unless you think you'll
have to
do some retuning at the colder running. I put in hotter plugs. Better
read the
plugs because too hot plugs will do no good to the valves. Maybe a
hotter
thermostat. Well, it's up to you.
HAFKNOT
Frank Ruff
> > It's amazing to me that people even discuss this snake oil, given
> > the vast body of research which refutes all of the advertising
> > claims of this stuff. (Cummins, Chrysler, etc.).
>
> DODGE it would develop a slow idle,
> heat up 10 degrees, and get 20% worse mileage.
>
Are there test results on the WWW? If they have been
conducted (and I'm sure that they have been) they are likely
available to the public. But, I have not seen them.
Seems the media is very quiet on a product that I imagine
is pretty worthless, or, at the least, very overpriced. Could it
be because they spend so much money on advertising?
Light, Ed
Where have you seen Tufoil advertised?
Somehow you disregard my personal experiences with Tufoil.
Are they fantasies of a Tufoil stockholder? I mean, can a Dodge
be all it can be without Tufoil? Never. It's but a mere shadow
of its true self.
But, from
www.tufoil.com
Independent university testing has reached from Israel, at
the Technion Institute all the way to The University of New
South Wales in Australia. Both laboratories proved the
effectiveness of Tufoil. Closer to home, the United States
Government has tested Tufoil at the National Bureau of
Standards (NIST) and found Tufoil to be the most slippery
substance known to man with a coefficient of friction of
.029. That's more slippery than Teflon at .04! The
Canadian Government ran extreme cold weather tests at
their laboratory in Kapuscasing. Their findings show that
Tufoil boosted cranking speed (both gas and diesel
engines) nearly 10% in cold weather starting. Their
findings showed a considerable fuel savings as well
(approximately 5%).
Recent tests by the well-known cold regions independent
test lab at Kapuskasing in Canada show
that Tufoil increases the cranking speed of cold diesels by 9.6%.
That means a big improvement in starting when it's cold.
Naturally, easier starting means that your battery life should be
greatly
extended, as well! Users report startling acceleration with diesels
using Tufoil. Reports of improved diesel performance at high altitudes
(mountains) are now coming in.
[Beats Slick 50 in this test:]
We have run thousands of abrasion tests in our lab over the last
25 years. The latest, which we appropriately call our
"Smoking/Non-smoking" test really shows how Tufoil stands out from
the
rest. One at a time, we placed each of the lubricants on the 4-ball
apparatus (used by the National Bureau of Standards). Within 13
minutes
or less each one had burned up engulfed in smoke!
When we placed Tufoil under the same conditions, we had to put away
the clock and run for a calendar! Tufoil ran for an astonishing 16
days
before we even noticed a wisp of smoke! (We name names and tell it
like
it is. So call us and we'll be happy to send you the test FREE of
charge!)
A friend pulled a travel trailer using a GMC 350 camper van with a blown
radiator
through the country into town and suffered no engine damage with Tufoil.
Frank Ruff
> > Seems the media is very quiet on a product that I imagine
> > is pretty worthless, or, at the least, very overpriced. Could it
> > be because they spend so much money on advertising?
>
> Where have you seen Tufoil advertised?
>
I don't remember where, but I certainly have seen ads over the
years, otherwise I wouldn't know about it. Course I was speaking
of both products when I said "they" and Slick 50 sure is advertised
a lot.
> Somehow you disregard my personal experiences with Tufoil.
> Are they fantasies of a Tufoil stockholder? I mean, can a Dodge
> be all it can be without Tufoil? Never. It's but a mere shadow
> of its true self.
>
Other factors could be at work too. You need tests under
controlled conditions to determine the actual improvement.
The following are just advertising claims from Tufoil. I would
like to see something done by an independant lab, even if
just an auto manufacturer, magazine, or something like
Consumer Reports.
Gary - KJ6Q
Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd7b92$9fd32ae0$5b4531d1@dcservic>...
>Other factors could be at work too. You need tests under
>controlled conditions to determine the actual improvement.
>
>
>The following are just advertising claims from Tufoil. I would
>like to see something done by an independant lab, even if
>just an auto manufacturer, magazine, or something like
>Consumer Reports.
>
WHY do you DENY the below claims? Merely because the Tufoil outfit dares
to (gasp!) use what they CLEARLY reveal as "independant lab tests" in
their advertising? The shameless CURS!
Naturally, NO reputable company would STOOP to using favorable,
independant lab results in their advertising, would they...?
I mean, after all, the National Bureau of Standards, and various
government tests, used to establish effectiveness of lubricants under
extreme conditions - REAL world for military and government
installations in places you or I will NEVER live or work in, like
deserts and arctic conditions. What's more the first hand testimony of
users in THIS group, who have experienced fairly dramatic positive
results MUST be flawed, and suspect as well - they obviously were
confused, and didn't properly interpret what they were experiencing...
I too, have had favorable direct experience with a few "wonder"
lubricants and other chemicals myself - a few are (to me) a waste of
dollars, but in the right circumstances, in the right application, there
ARE clear, demonstable benefits to be realized - and to use the broad
brush to paint them ALL as frauds - and their users fools - is itself,
foolish.
--
Gary - KJ6Q
====================
"Never again must we be shy, in
the face of the evidence..."
Bill Clinton, while on Africa trip...
Dane
Gary - KJ6Q <ga...@cwnet.com> wrote in article
<6j33lv$c...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> WHY do you DENY the below claims? Merely because the Tufoil outfit dares
> to (gasp!) use what they CLEARLY reveal as "independant lab tests" in
> their advertising? The shameless CURS!
>
> Naturally, NO reputable company would STOOP to using favorable,
> independant lab results in their advertising, would they...?
>
> I mean, after all, the National Bureau of Standards, and various
> government tests, used to establish effectiveness of lubricants under
> extreme conditions - REAL world for military and government
> installations in places you or I will NEVER live or work in, like
> deserts and arctic conditions. What's more the first hand testimony of
> users in THIS group, who have experienced fairly dramatic positive
> results MUST be flawed, and suspect as well - they obviously were
> confused, and didn't properly interpret what they were experiencing...
>
> I too, have had favorable direct experience with a few "wonder"
> lubricants and other chemicals myself - a few are (to me) a waste of
> dollars, but in the right circumstances, in the right application, there
> ARE clear, demonstable benefits to be realized - and to use the broad
> brush to paint them ALL as frauds - and their users fools - is itself,
> foolish.
>
Where can I buy some of this tufoil?? I want to try it once and see for
myself.
Bob
Dane
Bob <rch4...@yahoo.com> wrote in article <355536...@yahoo.com>...
> > Where can I buy some of this tufoil?? I want to try it once
and see for
> > myself.
> Take a peek at http://www.tufoil.com/ Let us know how it works.
> Bob
>
YOWZA!! Forget it, they want too much for it...
bumologist
In article <01bd7be4$9bd30620$fc47...@SpeedDemon.txdirect.net>,
la...@spambuster.txdirect.net says...
six quarts in,just one bottle the first time,and a half bottle when you
change the oil.My friend used it in his 77 buick,it went way over a
quarter million miles before he finally did a valve job,timing chain,oil
pump,and a boneyard intake(it cracked),then he drove it another 2 years
and after he sold it it went six months more,and broke a rod.Not bad for
a V6 Regal!!!I never keep anything more than 60 or 70K.....
Barry
Frank Ruff
>
> Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd7b92$9fd32ae0$5b4531d1@dcservic>...
>
>
> >Other factors could be at work too. You need tests under
> >controlled conditions to determine the actual improvement.
> >
> >
> >The following are just advertising claims from Tufoil. I would
> >like to see something done by an independant lab, even if
> >just an auto manufacturer, magazine, or something like
> >Consumer Reports.
> >
>
>
> WHY do you DENY the below claims? Merely because the Tufoil outfit dares
> to (gasp!) use what they CLEARLY reveal as "independant lab tests" in
> their advertising? The shameless CURS!
>
> Naturally, NO reputable company would STOOP to using favorable,
> independant lab results in their advertising, would they...?
>
Not sure if you are just putting me on or are serious.
I have not denied any claims. But, with any new product
some will claim it really helped and others just the opposite.
Controlled tests are the only way to know.
As a 57 year old engineer (former automotive engineer) I have
heard and seen many things over the years. Many worthless
things have had avid supporters. And, new useful products
are invented all the time.
I have not seen any "independant test results". All I have
seen so far is a typical manufacturer taking some test
results (that they probably paid for) and quoting something
favorable that they found somewhere in the report.
ALL reputable companies do that in every product made.
Then, there are always a few unreputable ones who just
make things up. But here, I suspect we are talking of
actual tests, but would want to see some actual results,
not just the manufacturers opinion of what happeded.
Gary - KJ6Q
Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd7c25$5e62a840$2f66efcf@dcservic>...
>
>>
>> Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd7b92$9fd32ae0$5b4531d1@dcservic>...
>>
>>
>> >Other factors could be at work too. You need tests under
>> >controlled conditions to determine the actual improvement.
>> >
>> >
>> >The following are just advertising claims from Tufoil.
I would
>> >like to see something done by an independant lab,
EXACTLY how MANY more tests than those outlined below do you NEED?
even if
>> >just an auto manufacturer, magazine, or something like
>> >Consumer Reports.
>> >
IF university, federal government, and National Bureau of Standards test
results aren't enough for you, I seriously DOUBT that Consumer Reports
will sway your clear predjudice!
>>
>> WHY do you DENY the below claims? Merely because the Tufoil outfit
dares
>> to (gasp!) use what they CLEARLY reveal as "independant lab tests" in
>> their advertising? The shameless CURS!
>>
>> Naturally, NO reputable company would STOOP to using favorable,
>> independant lab results in their advertising, would they...?
>>
>
>Not sure if you are just putting me on or are serious.
>
The text accompanying the post you commented on CLEARLY referred to
testing done by the National Bureau of Standards (They aren't
"independant" enough for you?), as well as others - here, I'll quote
them AGAIN for you:
>> Independent university testing has reached from Israel, at
>> the Technion Institute all the way to The University of New
>> South Wales in Australia.
OK, theres 2 more...
Both laboratories proved the
>> effectiveness of Tufoil. Closer to home, the United States
>> Government has tested Tufoil at the National Bureau of
>> Standards (NIST) and found Tufoil to be the most slippery
>> substance known to man with a coefficient of friction of
>> .029. That's more slippery than Teflon at .04!
There's the NBS again...
The
>> Canadian Government ran extreme cold weather tests at
>> their laboratory in Kapuscasing. Their findings show that
>> Tufoil boosted cranking speed (both gas and diesel
>> engines) nearly 10% in cold weather starting. Their
>> findings showed a considerable fuel savings as well
>> (approximately 5%).
There's a government test - perhaps they were slanted, or paid off by
Tufoil for their tests?
>>
>> Recent tests by the well-known cold regions independent
>> test lab at Kapuskasing in Canada show
>> that Tufoil increases the cranking speed of cold diesels by 9.6%.
>> That means a big improvement in starting when it's cold.
<SNIP>
Exactly how MANY examples of independant tests are ENOUGH for you to
accept? I have little doubt that the mentioned testing agencies will
provide documented proof of their tests, as well as the conditions they
were performed under - if you are TRULY interested in "factual
evidence"...
On the OTHER hand, if you are just being slanted, predjudiced, and
determined to deny the potential benefit of aftermarket products under
the broad brush of "snakeoil", then its doubtful that ANY proof will
satisfy you...
Michael
Ed, do you sell this stuff?
Frank Ruff
>
> IF university, federal government, and National Bureau of Standards test
> results aren't enough for you, I seriously DOUBT that Consumer Reports
> will sway your clear predjudice!
>
> >>
Predjudice????????
Seems to me you have made a decision about a product without
really researching its benefits or lack of.
I am only asking for proof that it is beneficial
for an engine before putting it in the crankcase of my engines..
Have you read those tests you keep talking about?
Listing their titles does little good. You have to read what they say
and they will have pages of data that might
---------
Dane
bumologist <bumol...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<MPG.fbf74a46...@news.pipeline.com>...
> >Sheesh,12 bucks for a bottle is going to kill you?
$12 my ass!!! Try $31!!
Light, Ed
$31 for two 8oz. bottles plus a free 8oz. bottle, so that's 24 oz.
You put in 8oz. the first time, then 4 each oil change.
So that's 5 oil changes, normally 6.
About $6 per oil change.
Light, Ed
> make things up. But here, I suspect we are talking of
> actual tests, but would want to see some actual results,
> not just the manufacturers opinion of what happeded.
Light, Ed
Michael wrote:
>
> Ed, do you sell this stuff?
and wouldn't think of being without it!
I haven't even mentioned the fuel additive I use,
Super 21. It's recommended by the United Nations
for reducing polution. It will at least pay for itself
in saved fuel, but probably come out ahead.
It's good enough to stop pinging if it's borderline.
They will send you independent test results.
http://www.peggybank.com/additive.htm
Light, Ed
OK Tufoil Test Results from their hard copy literature.
Guinness Book of World Records:
"World's Most Efficient Lubricant" based on US gov. test.
Ball bearing test:
Official friction test used by the National
Bureau of Standards. "4-ball test"
Tested by Tufoil.
MINUTES TILL DEGREES
PRODUCT SMOKING CELSIUS
-------------------------------------
Bardahl #2 6 65
Bitron 6 90
Dr. Detroit 13 115
Duralube 10 110
Fin 25 7.5 90
Fluorotote 8 120
Formula TX-7 7.5 110
Hyper Lube 3.5 50
Lubrifilm 4 60
Lubrilon 7 80
Nulon 6 160
OEM 6 80
Petrotech 10 60
QMI 6 90
Sintacid 4 60
Sinto Racing 6 110
**Slick-50** 7 80
Slick Willie 5.5 80
STP XEP 12 95
T-Plus 7 130
**TUFOIL** **16 DAYS** 60
Whiz 5 75
Wynns Formula 85 5 70
Note TUFOIL went 16 days.
Test of Super 21 Fuel Additive
Myflower Transit
PO Box 11828
Fort Wayne, IN 46861
In diesel trucks, they got a 13% mileage increase,
22% on one truck, drivers felt more power. Now
use it as standard.
The International JetSki Federation of Japan
endorsed F2-21 (S 21) as the official fuel
additive for its marine sports.
The UN selected F2-21 (S 21) as the most effective and
economical fuel additive for alleviating transport-
related air pollution problems and conserving energy
in Asia.
Option 2 Magazine, Dec. 1996, ranked F2-21 as the best non-
toxic fuel additive in the market for increasing power in
motor vehicles.
US EPA IM240 Test Results of Super 21
Conducted by State of Colorado June 1995
Shows pollution reductions averaging 50%
Smog check on '84 Peugot. Used to fail, got 90% reduction
of HC, CO went 7.56 to .01, CO2 6.3 to 13.
Mechanic report, Searle's, Modesto CA
"Upon inspection of 1989 Lexus with 134,758 miles on it ......
the spark plugs were clean, cylinders lacked carbon building,
cylinder walls were clean. The valves lacked carbon buildup.
etc.
If you need test reports contact the manufacturers.
PLCPRO
I have use Slick 50 in my 90 GrandPrix since it had 15,000 miles on it, it now
has 140,000 miles and runs better than new. After using the Slick 50 the hiway
milage went from 28 to 30 mpg. I have also used it in 2 Jeeps and a Chevy
truck with no mpg improvement. I sold the 87 Chevy with 89,000 miles on it and
it too was in good shape. The 4 cyl 2.5 in the first Jeep went bad after
145,000 miles of abuse but I did not start using Slick 50 in it until 50,000
miles. The 2nd Jeep, with a 6 cylinder, now has 96,000 miles on it and is like
new.
Is Slick 50 and other things like it a ripoff? I don't think most of them are.
How can they hurt?
Dane
Light, Ed <m...@mk.net> wrote in article <355644...@mk.net>...
> > $12 my ass!!! Try $31!!
>
> $31 for two 8oz. bottles plus a free 8oz. bottle, so that's 24 oz.
> You put in 8oz. the first time, then 4 each oil change.
> So that's 5 oil changes, normally 6.
> About $6 per oil change.
> --
> Best wishes!
True, but I still gotta spend the $31 to get even one oil change worth.
Dane
Light, Ed <m...@mk.net> wrote in article <355646...@mk.net>...
> Michael wrote:
> >
> > Ed, do you sell this stuff?
> No, actually, not. I've used it in two Dodges now
> and wouldn't think of being without it!
>
> I haven't even mentioned the fuel additive I use,
> Super 21. It's recommended by the United Nations
> for reducing polution. It will at least pay for itself
> in saved fuel, but probably come out ahead.
> It's good enough to stop pinging if it's borderline.
> They will send you independent test results.
> http://www.peggybank.com/additive.htm
> --
> Best wishes!
> _________________
Hmmm..works very similar to water injector units that are fitted on some
race cars and RV type vehicles. The water helps reduce ping because it
cools the combustion process. Never heard anyhting about it cleaning the
combustion chamber though. I almost had a water injector put on a '68
Camaro I had with a 327 in it. The local speed shop put them on all thier
race cars....
JackUzi
On Sun, 10 May 1998 14:40:22 -0500, "Michael" <robi...@hcnews.com>
wrote:
>Ed, do you sell this stuff?
>
>
I'm sure he does
A Soviet and an American had a race, the American won.
Soviet newsman reported that the Soviet came in second and that
American came in next to last.
Same methods used in most advertisments i think.
bumologist
In article <01bd7c60$f6e2b840$fc47...@SpeedDemon.txdirect.net>,
la...@spambuster.txdirect.net says...
>
>
> bumologist <bumol...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
> <MPG.fbf74a46...@news.pipeline.com>...
> > >Sheesh,12 bucks for a bottle is going to kill you?
>
>
Barry
Dane
bumologist <bumol...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<MPG.fc0c8333...@news.pipeline.com>...
Which store????????
bumologist
> > > > >Sheesh,12 bucks for a bottle is going to kill you?
> > >
> > > $12 my ass!!! Try $31!!
> > >
> > > I just saw it at a local store,11.97,for the SMALLLL bottle,not the
> quart one!!!
> >
> > Barry
>
> Which store????????
Anderson's in the Toledo,Oh area.....
Dane
bumologist <bumol...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<MPG.fc1c54fb...@news.pipeline.com>...
Oh well, don't have "Anderson's" here.....and I can't find it in any local
stores...
Dane
MAGNUM <MAG...@Home.Com> wrote in article
<3558c0ac...@news.mindspring.com>...
> If all this be true about TUFOIL, then what is the
> ingredients in it that makes it different than
> some 20 or more oil additives?
>
> Tim
>
Probably a trade secret...
Light, Ed
Check the web site again and you'll see that $31 is for two 8 oz.
bottles
plus a free one.
So, that's the initial treatment of 8 oz. plus four later oil changes at
4 oz. each.
In the store 3 8 oz. bottles would be $36, by mail they are $31.
Dane
Light, Ed <m...@mk.net> wrote in article <355877...@mk.net>...
>
> Check the web site again and you'll see that $31 is for two 8 oz.
> bottles
> plus a free one.
> So, that's the initial treatment of 8 oz. plus four later oil changes at
> 4 oz. each.
>
> In the store 3 8 oz. bottles would be $36, by mail they are $31.
>
> --
>
And as I said before, I don't care if I get 5 bottles, it'll still cost me
$31 to get some. I don't want to spend that much money just to try it out
once. IF I can get a bottle (just one, not 3 or 4) and IF I can pay just
$11 or $12 for it, I might be inclined to try it. IF it works as good as
claimed, THEN I will pay $31 to get three bottles of it...
Mach5 Mike
me
>$31 to get some. I don't want to spend that much money just to try it out
>once. IF I can get a bottle (just one, not 3 or 4) and IF I can pay just
>$11 or $12 for it, I might be inclined to try it. IF it works as good as
>claimed, THEN I will pay $31 to get three bottles of it...
>
>
In my opinion, you'd be much better off spending the $31 on more frequent oil
changes with regular motor oil.
Mike
Rabbit
MAGNUM wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 1998 17:27:46 -0700, "Light, Ed"
> <m...@mk.net> wrote:
>
> >Michael wrote:
> >>
> >> Ed, do you sell this stuff?
> >No, actually, not. I've used it in two Dodges now
> >and wouldn't think of being without it!
> >
> >I haven't even mentioned the fuel additive I use,
> >Super 21. It's recommended by the United Nations
> >for reducing polution. It will at least pay for itself
> >in saved fuel, but probably come out ahead.
> >It's good enough to stop pinging if it's borderline.
> >They will send you independent test results.
> >http://www.peggybank.com/additive.htm
>
> If all this be true about TUFOIL, then what is the
> ingredients in it that makes it different than
> some 20 or more oil additives?
>
> Tim
I think it's blessed by the Pope or a rabbi or something before each bottle
leaves the factory ...
Rabbit
Light, Ed
> >
>
> In my opinion, you'd be much better off spending the $31 on more frequent oil
> changes with regular motor oil.
> Mike
More and more people join the thread with reservations about Tufoil,
so as an adamant user, I must fill them in.
You buy it wanting to make things more slippery in your engine so it'll
last longer and get better mileage.
It breaks in and your temp. gauge has fallen from 180 to 170. You've had
to turn the idle down because it started to scream and you were
concerned
for the drive train when you put it in drive.
Did it work?
Frank Ruff
>
> It breaks in and your temp. gauge has fallen from 180 to 170. You've had
> to turn the idle down because it started to scream and you were
> concerned
> for the drive train when you put it in drive.
>
> Did it work?
> --
Obviously the thermostat has gone bad. You need a new one.
Dane
Mach5 Mike <mach...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199805122059...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >
>
> In my opinion, you'd be much better off spending the $31 on more frequent
oil
> changes with regular motor oil.
> Mike
>
Well, for the price of a single bottle, I'd be willing to try it for
myself. At least once, anyway.
Light, Ed
Yeah, I guess without the heat stress of 10 degrees heat the idle
was freed to rise.
bumologist
> > >
> >
> > In my opinion, you'd be much better off spending the $31 on more frequent
> oil
> > changes with regular motor oil.
> > Mike
> >
>
> Well, for the price of a single bottle, I'd be willing to try it for
> myself. At least once, anyway.
>
>
>>>>>>Well,at least you are keeping some kind of open mind.Just
remember,it won't do anything right away,it takes awhile.I think the idle
on my 77PW started going up after about 2 weeks,and went up again after I
took a 600+ mile trip.The temp DID go down a little bit,a help in Las
Vegas!It ran smoother,and seemed a little faster too!I had an intake
manifold crack at 40k,and was impressed with the lack of wear on the
rockers compared to my friends 78PW(both had 360's)who had a head gasket
go bad at about 35K.
Try it,you'll like it!!!
Barry
Dane
bumologist <bumol...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<MPG.fc456a28...@news.pipeline.com>...
>
>>Well,at least you are keeping some kind of open mind.Just
> remember,it won't do anything right away,it takes awhile.I think the idle
> on my 77PW started going up after about 2 weeks,and went up again after I
> took a 600+ mile trip.The temp DID go down a little bit,a help in Las
> Vegas!It ran smoother,and seemed a little faster too!I had an intake
> manifold crack at 40k,and was impressed with the lack of wear on the
> rockers compared to my friends 78PW(both had 360's)who had a head gasket
> go bad at about 35K.
> Try it,you'll like it!!!
> Barry
>
Oh yeah, I have an open mind, that's not the problem...but my mind isn't
open enough to spend $30+ jsut to try it out.
Frank
Here in Massachusetts I have bought it at my local "Bennies" for $5.99 on
sale ... reg price $6.99, and at "True Value Hardware" for $8.99 (before I
found it at "Bennies"). I haven't looked at "Auto Palace", "Auto Zone", "Pep
Boys", etc.
Regards,
Frank
Dane wrote in message
<01bd7f79$af274a40$2b47...@SpeedDemon.txdirect.net>...
>
<snip>
Light, Ed
> >
>
> Oh yeah, I have an open mind, that's not the problem...but my mind isn't
> open enough to spend $30+ jsut to try it out.
on the Tufoil web site. But you might try contacting them to
see if they do.
Glen Grant
MAGNUM wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 May 1998 17:27:46 -0700, "Light, Ed"
> <m...@mk.net> wrote:
>
> >Michael wrote:
> >>
> >> Ed, do you sell this stuff?
> >No, actually, not. I've used it in two Dodges now
> >and wouldn't think of being without it!
> >
> >I haven't even mentioned the fuel additive I use,
> >Super 21. It's recommended by the United Nations
> >for reducing polution. It will at least pay for itself
> >in saved fuel, but probably come out ahead.
> >It's good enough to stop pinging if it's borderline.
> >They will send you independent test results.
> >http://www.peggybank.com/additive.htm
>
> If all this be true about TUFOIL, then what is the
> ingredients in it that makes it different than
> some 20 or more oil additives?
>
> Tim
It worked especially well in the 4 cylinder vehicles I owned . When you
first use it , it definetly smooths out the idle and acceleration
which to me equates to a reduction in friction which is what we are all
after . I have used it for years with no problems in any vehicles .
Used with all makes of filters and it never clogged any of them or
caused any problem . It does help it turn over faster in the winter and
it runs a bit cooler in the summer at least according to the temp guage
. I think you'll notice a difference if you try a 8 oz. bottle for a
oil change . The only place you can get it around here is mail order .
They used to carry it at National auto when they were around but then
Western auto bought them and stopped carrying it .
Richard Eriksson
Glen Grant wrote:
>
What's in Tufoil. Is it Teflon?
Richard Eriksson
Sorry - I screwed up. Glen didn't say that. I did.
Light, Ed
> . I think you'll notice a difference if you try a 8 oz. bottle for a
> oil change .
Don't forget that with Tufoil you put in 8 oz. the first time
and 4 oz. thereafter.
TooTall
When you spend 16 bucks for a quart of that snake oil, you imagine all kinds
of good shit happening.
Gary - KJ6Q wrote in message <6j33lv$c...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>
>Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd7b92$9fd32ae0$5b4531d1@dcservic>...
>
>
>>Other factors could be at work too. You need tests under
>>controlled conditions to determine the actual improvement.
>>
>>
>>The following are just advertising claims from Tufoil. I would
>>like to see something done by an independant lab, even if
>>just an auto manufacturer, magazine, or something like
>>Consumer Reports.
>>
>
>
>WHY do you DENY the below claims? Merely because the Tufoil outfit dares
>to (gasp!) use what they CLEARLY reveal as "independant lab tests" in
>their advertising? The shameless CURS!
>
>Naturally, NO reputable company would STOOP to using favorable,
>independant lab results in their advertising, would they...?
>
>I mean, after all, the National Bureau of Standards, and various
>government tests, used to establish effectiveness of lubricants under
>extreme conditions - REAL world for military and government
>installations in places you or I will NEVER live or work in, like
>deserts and arctic conditions. What's more the first hand testimony of
>users in THIS group, who have experienced fairly dramatic positive
>results MUST be flawed, and suspect as well - they obviously were
>confused, and didn't properly interpret what they were experiencing...
>
>I too, have had favorable direct experience with a few "wonder"
>lubricants and other chemicals myself - a few are (to me) a waste of
>dollars, but in the right circumstances, in the right application, there
>ARE clear, demonstable benefits to be realized - and to use the broad
>brush to paint them ALL as frauds - and their users fools - is itself,
>foolish.
>
>
>
>>
>>> But, from
>>> www.tufoil.com
>>>
>>> Independent university testing has reached from Israel, at
>>> the Technion Institute all the way to The University of New
>>> South Wales in Australia. Both laboratories proved the
>>> effectiveness of Tufoil. Closer to home, the United States
>>> Government has tested Tufoil at the National Bureau of
>>> Standards (NIST) and found Tufoil to be the most slippery
>>> substance known to man with a coefficient of friction of
>>> .029. That's more slippery than Teflon at .04! The
>>> Canadian Government ran extreme cold weather tests at
>>> their laboratory in Kapuscasing. Their findings show that
>>> Tufoil boosted cranking speed (both gas and diesel
>>> engines) nearly 10% in cold weather starting. Their
>>> findings showed a considerable fuel savings as well
>>> (approximately 5%).
>>>
>>> Recent tests by the well-known cold regions independent
>>> test lab at Kapuskasing in Canada show
>>> that Tufoil increases the cranking speed of cold diesels by 9.6%.
>>> That means a big improvement in starting when it's cold.
>>> Naturally, easier starting means that your battery life should be
>>> greatly
>>> extended, as well! Users report startling acceleration with diesels
>>> using Tufoil. Reports of improved diesel performance at high
>altitudes
>>> (mountains) are now coming in.
>>>
>>>
>>> [Beats Slick 50 in this test:]
>>> We have run thousands of abrasion tests in our lab over the last
>>> 25 years. The latest, which we appropriately call our
>>> "Smoking/Non-smoking" test really shows how Tufoil stands out
>from
>>> the
>>> rest. One at a time, we placed each of the lubricants on the
>4-ball
>>> apparatus (used by the National Bureau of Standards). Within 13
>>> minutes
>>> or less each one had burned up engulfed in smoke!
>>> When we placed Tufoil under the same conditions, we had to put
>away
>>> the clock and run for a calendar! Tufoil ran for an astonishing
>16
>>> days
>>> before we even noticed a wisp of smoke! (We name names and tell
>it
>>> like
>>> it is. So call us and we'll be happy to send you the test FREE of
>>> charge!)
>>
>
>
>--
>Gary - KJ6Q
>====================
>"Never again must we be shy, in
>the face of the evidence..."
> Bill Clinton, while on Africa trip...
>
>
TooTall
Have you read the test where it settles out in oil ports etc...? They were
also independent. Save your money.
Gary - KJ6Q wrote in message <6j4mf2$q...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd7c25$5e62a840$2f66efcf@dcservic>...
>>
>>>
>>> Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd7b92$9fd32ae0$5b4531d1@dcservic>...
>>>
>>>
>>> >Other factors could be at work too. You need tests under
>>> >controlled conditions to determine the actual improvement.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >The following are just advertising claims from Tufoil.
>
> I would
>>> >like to see something done by an independant lab,
>
>
>EXACTLY how MANY more tests than those outlined below do you NEED?
>
> even if
>>> >just an auto manufacturer, magazine, or something like
>>> >Consumer Reports.
>>> >
>
>
>IF university, federal government, and National Bureau of Standards test
>results aren't enough for you, I seriously DOUBT that Consumer Reports
>will sway your clear predjudice!
>
>>>
>>> WHY do you DENY the below claims? Merely because the Tufoil outfit
>dares
>>> to (gasp!) use what they CLEARLY reveal as "independant lab tests" in
>>> their advertising? The shameless CURS!
>>>
>>> Naturally, NO reputable company would STOOP to using favorable,
>>> independant lab results in their advertising, would they...?
>>>
>>
>>Not sure if you are just putting me on or are serious.
>>
>
>The text accompanying the post you commented on CLEARLY referred to
>testing done by the National Bureau of Standards (They aren't
>"independant" enough for you?), as well as others - here, I'll quote
>them AGAIN for you:
>
>
>
>
>>> Independent university testing has reached from Israel, at
>>> the Technion Institute all the way to The University of New
>>> South Wales in Australia.
>
>OK, theres 2 more...
>
> Both laboratories proved the
>>> effectiveness of Tufoil. Closer to home, the United States
>>> Government has tested Tufoil at the National Bureau of
>>> Standards (NIST) and found Tufoil to be the most slippery
>>> substance known to man with a coefficient of friction of
>>> .029. That's more slippery than Teflon at .04!
>
>There's the NBS again...
>
>The
>>> Canadian Government ran extreme cold weather tests at
>>> their laboratory in Kapuscasing. Their findings show that
>>> Tufoil boosted cranking speed (both gas and diesel
>>> engines) nearly 10% in cold weather starting. Their
>>> findings showed a considerable fuel savings as well
>>> (approximately 5%).
>
>There's a government test - perhaps they were slanted, or paid off by
>Tufoil for their tests?
>
>
>>>
>>> Recent tests by the well-known cold regions independent
>>> test lab at Kapuskasing in Canada show
>>> that Tufoil increases the cranking speed of cold diesels by 9.6%.
>>> That means a big improvement in starting when it's cold.
>
><SNIP>
>
>Exactly how MANY examples of independant tests are ENOUGH for you to
>accept? I have little doubt that the mentioned testing agencies will
>provide documented proof of their tests, as well as the conditions they
>were performed under - if you are TRULY interested in "factual
>evidence"...
>
>On the OTHER hand, if you are just being slanted, predjudiced, and
>determined to deny the potential benefit of aftermarket products under
>the broad brush of "snakeoil", then its doubtful that ANY proof will
>satisfy you...
TooTall
Yes, I've seen them floating around from time to time. The stuff stops up
oil ports and does nothing but get filtered out and plug the filter.
Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd7b3e$06fbdc80$2466efcf@dcservic>...
>> > It's amazing to me that people even discuss this snake oil, given
>> > the vast body of research which refutes all of the advertising
>> > claims of this stuff. (Cummins, Chrysler, etc.).
>>
>> If I stopped using it in my (gas) Dear Old Dependable Good Engine
>> DODGE it would develop a slow idle,
>> heat up 10 degrees, and get 20% worse mileage.
>>
>
>Are there test results on the WWW? If they have been
>conducted (and I'm sure that they have been) they are likely
>available to the public. But, I have not seen them.
>
>Seems the media is very quiet on a product that I imagine
>is pretty worthless, or, at the least, very overpriced. Could it
>be because they spend so much money on advertising?
TooTall
Me too. I wouldn't put that crap in my lawn mower.
Sir Spamalot wrote in message <35556dac...@news5.bellatlantic.net>...
>>On Fri, 08 May 1998 12:28:43 -0700, "Light, Ed" <m...@mk.net> wrote:
>
>>Tufoil is probably much better than Slick 50. I seem to remember that
>>slick 50 was one of the ones that Tufoil totally beat in an endurance
>>test where a load was put on a spinning bearing.
>>Tufoil has some extra ingredients over the basic teflon.
Gary - KJ6Q
TooTall wrote in message <6jhkqo$hru$1...@chile.it.earthlink.net>...
>Me too. I wouldn't put that crap in my lawn mower.
>
>>It's amazing to me that people even discuss this snake oil, given
>>the vast body of research which refutes all of the advertising
>>claims of this stuff. (Cummins, Chrysler, etc.).
>>
Even *more* "amazing" is how quickly people will attack the hearsay and
word-of-mouth claims of satisfied users of some aftermarket product -
but in the very NEXT breath, will rabidly embrace the assumed accuracy
of a VASTLY more specious counterclaim! Exactly WHERE is this "vast body
of research" that "refutes" the advertising claims of Tufoil - or other
similar products. Since the original poster made such a reference,
perhaps he could ALSO provide a cite for it as well?
Don't like the stuff, or believe its claimed benefits? DON'T BUY OR USE
IT!
OTHERWISE, your personal opinions are no better than ours - perhaps
WORSE, since we HAVE used some of these products, with personal results
that prove to OUR satisfaction that they DO provide a beneficial result.
NOW, if YOU can provide an equally PERSONAL (not hearsay or 3rd or 4th
hand) experience, or documented laboratory proof - let's SEE it!
Gary - KJ6Q
Gary - KJ6Q
CITE please... Otherwise, your claim is just so much hot air and BS...
YOU know - the same sort of crap you accuse the "snake oil" dealers
of...
--
Gary - KJ6Q
====================
"Never again must we be shy, in
the face of the evidence..."
Bill Clinton, while on Africa trip...
TooTall wrote in message <6jhkti$htf$1...@chile.it.earthlink.net>...
Gary - KJ6Q
AHHHhh, You mean like the guy who experienced *first hand* the reduce
engine operating temperature and increased idle RPM? You mean like my
OWN experience with an oil burning '57 Ford V8, that dropped from 4
quarts of oil per 1000 miles, down to 1 quart, by adding a single can of
STP? YOU mean like the steady dripping leak from the automatic tranny of
my '67 Chevy wagon, and the EXTREMELY poor first shift every morning
that were COMPLETELY eliminated by use of one of Dupont's transmission
additives? NOW, *I* experienced these benefits first hand - as well as
others of similar effect - but I have LITTLE doubt that from your remote
and slanted position, you can quickly find some smart remark or method
of ridicule that is so scientific and logical that it will COMPLETELY
negate all I have experienced first hand... I mean, How can my
*personal*, first hand experience even BEGIN to compete with your vague
predjudice and faintly remembered, no-name countering evidence...
--
Gary - KJ6Q
====================
"Never again must we be shy, in
the face of the evidence..."
Bill Clinton, while on Africa trip...
TooTall wrote in message <6jhl4f$i2d$1...@chile.it.earthlink.net>...
Gary - KJ6Q
NOPE, sure haven't - and I am CERTAIN you will immediately provide us
with a reputable cite from a major, well respected source...
We'll wait...
--
Gary - KJ6Q
====================
"Never again must we be shy, in
the face of the evidence..."
Bill Clinton, while on Africa trip...
TooTall wrote in message <6jhlct$ib1$1...@chile.it.earthlink.net>...
Light, Ed
> >>It's amazing to me that people even discuss this snake oil, given
> >>the vast body of research which refutes all of the advertising
> >>claims of this stuff. (Cummins, Chrysler, etc.).
the warrantee and he said it was ok.
>
> Even *more* "amazing" is how quickly people will attack the hearsay and
> word-of-mouth claims of satisfied users of some aftermarket product -
> but in the very NEXT breath, will rabidly embrace the assumed accuracy
> of a VASTLY more specious counterclaim! Exactly WHERE is this "vast body
> of research" that "refutes" the advertising claims of Tufoil - or other
> similar products. Since the original poster made such a reference,
> perhaps he could ALSO provide a cite for it as well?
>
> Don't like the stuff, or believe its claimed benefits? DON'T BUY OR USE
> IT!
>
> OTHERWISE, your personal opinions are no better than ours - perhaps
> WORSE, since we HAVE used some of these products, with personal results
> that prove to OUR satisfaction that they DO provide a beneficial result.
> NOW, if YOU can provide an equally PERSONAL (not hearsay or 3rd or 4th
> hand) experience, or documented laboratory proof - let's SEE it!
>
> Gary - KJ6Q
Here here! He might as well post: "I sense that Tufoil is a scam,
so you who say you've happily used it are malicious liers."
It really is shocking to be taken that way.
Maybe he's one of these people who just like to use the net
to needle other people.
Light, Ed
TooTall wrote:
>
> Yes, I've seen them floating around from time to time. The stuff stops up
> oil ports and does nothing but get filtered out and plug the filter.
I've had no trouble with Tufoil.
Light, Ed
TooTall wrote:
>
> Have you read the test where it settles out in oil ports etc...? They were
> also independent. Save your money.
"It" being what? Tufoil? Slick 50?
In a bearing stress test Slick 50 gave up within 16 minutes and
Tufoil went 16 days.
Was there an article about Slick 50 causing problems?
Frank Ruff
If you put something totally worthless in or on an engine, 50% will
say it helped and 50% will say it hurt. Some will report minor changes and
some very major change Too many other variables
to ever determine if it helped or hurt unless done under careful test
conditions. For that reason, personal opinions are totally worthless
The only tests worth considering are those conducted by someone
other than the manufacturer or paid for by the manufacturer.
Does anyone have a URL for any such test results. I am sure that
every engine manufacturer in the country (and probably the world)
has conducted such tests. Also, every oil refining company
would do so.
Gary - KJ6Q <ga...@cwnet.com> wrote in article
<6jhr7j$c...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>
>
>
> TooTall wrote in message <6jhkqo$hru$1...@chile.it.earthlink.net>...
> >Me too. I wouldn't put that crap in my lawn mower.
> >
> >>It's amazing to me that people even discuss this snake oil, given
> >>the vast body of research which refutes all of the advertising
> >>claims of this stuff. (Cummins, Chrysler, etc.).
> >>
>
TooTall
I think it was slick 50 or maybe all Teflon based snake oils. It's been a
couple of years since I read it. If I can find it I'll post it gladly.
Light, Ed wrote in message <355CC5...@mk.net>...
TooTall
Hey Gary, Show me all your proof of how it works. You see, your proof is
only what you say is your personal experience. Sorry, that's worthless.
And by the way, What's gotten you all in a huff because I'm telling you I
read some research about how it doesn't work. I'm simply telling you what
I've read. You don't have to believe it no more than I believe your engine
temp dropped 15 degrees when you put the stuff in. (by the way, if it did
you had better check your thermostat)
Do you sell this stuff? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to cut into your action
here.
Light, Ed wrote in message <355CC4...@mk.net>...
>Gary - KJ6Q wrote:
>>
>> TooTall wrote in message <6jhkqo$hru$1...@chile.it.earthlink.net>...
>.....
>> >>It's amazing to me that people even discuss this snake oil, given
>> >>the vast body of research which refutes all of the advertising
>> >>claims of this stuff. (Cummins, Chrysler, etc.).
>I went to a Cummins dealer years ago to see if Tufoil voided
>the warrantee and he said it was ok.
>
>>
>> Even *more* "amazing" is how quickly people will attack the hearsay and
>> word-of-mouth claims of satisfied users of some aftermarket product -
>> but in the very NEXT breath, will rabidly embrace the assumed accuracy
>> of a VASTLY more specious counterclaim! Exactly WHERE is this "vast body
>> of research" that "refutes" the advertising claims of Tufoil - or other
>> similar products. Since the original poster made such a reference,
>> perhaps he could ALSO provide a cite for it as well?
>>
>> Don't like the stuff, or believe its claimed benefits? DON'T BUY OR USE
>> IT!
>>
>> OTHERWISE, your personal opinions are no better than ours - perhaps
>> WORSE, since we HAVE used some of these products, with personal results
>> that prove to OUR satisfaction that they DO provide a beneficial result.
>> NOW, if YOU can provide an equally PERSONAL (not hearsay or 3rd or 4th
>> hand) experience, or documented laboratory proof - let's SEE it!
>>
>> Gary - KJ6Q
>
>Here here! He might as well post: "I sense that Tufoil is a scam,
>so you who say you've happily used it are malicious liers."
>
>It really is shocking to be taken that way.
>
>Maybe he's one of these people who just like to use the net
>to needle other people.
>
Gary - KJ6Q
TooTall wrote in message <6jlfi2$60q$1...@chile.it.earthlink.net>...
>Hey Gary, Show me all your proof of how it works. You see, your proof
is
>only what you say is your personal experience.
NO "huff" - only my criticism of YOUR expressions of contempt for a
product(s) you have apparently never tried - based purely on some
article you can't produce, and your own slanted predjudice. As for MY
evidence - come to my garage, and I will GLADLY show you the concrete
floor under my 1970 Cadillac that bears OLD stains from transmission
leaks that are NOW totally cured by a "snakeoil" additive. My other
"testimonials" are NOT based on old wives tales, or articles I "think" I
might have read from some source or another in the distant past but from
ACTUAL, FIRST HAND trial and experience. You are ENTIRELY free to
disregard them, as you choose...
Sorry, that's worthless.
>And by the way, What's gotten you all in a huff because I'm telling you
I
>read some research about how it doesn't work. I'm simply telling you
what
>I've read.
Your "research" will be MUCH more credible when its actually PRODUCED,
and shown to be from an accepted source - supermarket tabloids DON'T
qualify...
You don't have to believe it no more than I believe your engine
>temp dropped 15 degrees when you put the stuff in.
Not MY claim - someone elses - which YOU undoubtedly would reject if it
was demonstrated right in FRONT of you...
(by the way, if it did
>you had better check your thermostat)
>
>Do you sell this stuff? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to cut into your
action
>here.
NOPE - I don't "sell" the stuff, couldn't care LESS whether YOU, or
anyone else EVER buys any of the stuff - I am merely protesting the
blind, ignorant attacks and blanket condemnations of products by people
who base their predjudice on baroom and barbershop discussions rather
than actual use and personal experience. Those sort will NEVER be
persuaded by ANY evidence of ANY sort - and would rather continue to
wallow in ignorance than give a product the benefit of an impartial
test. On the other hand, MY direct beneficial has saved ME the expense
of one engine overhaul, and 2 transmission overhauls... at a total
expense of under $10...
YOU, are free to do as you choose, and continue to pat yourself on the
back for being so "wise" and "thrifty"...
By the way - we may have a disagreement here, on this subject - but I am
in NO way your enemy, and as wrong as you clearly are on this
subject<G>, you are no doubt a great guy in all other respects... 8^)
Gary - KJ6Q
Dane
Frank <gracie...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote in article
<6jfkk3$mgb$1...@strato.ultra.net>...
> Here in Massachusetts I have bought it at my local "Bennies" for $5.99 on
> sale ... reg price $6.99, and at "True Value Hardware" for $8.99 (before
I
> found it at "Bennies"). I haven't looked at "Auto Palace", "Auto Zone",
"Pep
> Boys", etc.
>
> Regards,
> Frank
>
> Dane wrote in message
> <01bd7f79$af274a40$2b47...@SpeedDemon.txdirect.net>...
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Oh yeah, I have an open mind, that's not the problem...but my mind
isn't
> >open enough to spend $30+ jsut to try it out.
> >
>
>
>
Checked Auto Zone, Pep Boys...none there, at least not where I live...but
I haven't looked in True Value...I'll stop in monday and see if they have
it...
TooTall
>By the way - we may have a disagreement here, on this subject - but I am
>in NO way your enemy, and as wrong as you clearly are on this
>subject<G>, you are no doubt a great guy in all other respects... 8^)
That's a very kind comment and that expresses my own feelings. It's kinda
fun and that's what makes the newsgroups so interesting.
Now enough ass kissing.
>NO "huff" - only my criticism of YOUR expressions of contempt for a
>product(s) you have apparently never tried - based purely on some
>article you can't produce, and your own slanted predjudice.
Here's the info I was telling you I read. I don't lie. Now, the ball's in
your court. Read and weep. More to come. FTC is on slick 50's ass also.
Read in my next post. Are you sure you wanted me to produce?
slick 50 and other engine oil additives
You may have heard the commercial or seen the ad:
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.
There are about 50 other products on the market which make similar claims,
many of them being just duplicate products under different names from the
same company. The price for a pint or quart of these engine oil additives
runs from a few dollars to more than $20. Do these products do any good? Not
much. Do they do any harm. Sometimes.
What's in these miracle lubricants, anyway? And, if they're so wonderful,
why don't car manufacturers recommend their usage? And why don't oil
companies get into the additive business? And where are these studies
mentioned by Petrolon (Slick 50)? Probably in the same file cabinet as the
tobacco company studies proving the health benefits of smoking.
The basic ingredient is the same in most of these additives: 50 weight
engine oil with standard additives. The magic ingredient in Slick 50, Liquid
Ring, Lubrilon, Microlon, Matrix, QM1 and T-Plus from K-Mart is
Polytetrafloeraethylene. Don't try to pronounce it: call it PTFE. But don't
call it Teflon, which is what it is, because that is a registered trademark.
Dupont, who invented Teflon, claims that "Teflon is not useful as an
ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal combustion engines."
But what do they know? They haven't seen the secret studies done by Petrolon
(Slick 50).
PTFE is a solid which is added to engine oil and allegedly coats the moving
parts of the engine.
However, such solids seem even more inclined to coat non-moving parts, like
oil passages and filters. After all, if it can build up under the pressures
and friction exerted on a cylinder wall, then it stands to reason it should
build up even better in places with low pressures and virtually no friction.
This conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil additives containing
PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center, which said in their
report, "In the types of bearing surface contact we have looked at, we have
seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen detrimental effect. The solids
in the oil tend to accumulate at inlets and act as a dam, which simply
blocks the oil from entering. Instead of helping, it is actually depriving
parts of lubricant."[Rau]
In defense of Slick 50, tests done on a Chevy 6 cylinder engine by the
University of Utah Engineering Experiment Station found that after treatment
with the PTFE additive the test engine's friction was reduced by 13.1
percent, the output horsepower increased from 5.3 percent to 8.1 percent,
and fuel economy improved as well. Unfortunately, the same tests concluded
that "There was a pressure drop across the oil filter resulting from
possible clogging of small passageways." Oil analysis showed that iron
contamination doubled after the treatment, indicating that engine wear
increased. [Rau]
Another type of additive is zinc dialkyldithiophosphate. Zinc-d is found in
Mechanics Brand Engine Tune Up, K Mart Super Oil Treatment, and STP Engine
Treatment With XEP2, among others. The touting of zinc-d as a special
ingredient in engine oil additives is a little like the Anacin commercials
which used to tout the fact that they had an extra added pain reliever which
made them special. What was it? Aspirin. The aspirin had more aspirin.
Zinc-d is an additive in most, if not all, major oil brands. The wonder oils
just put more of the stuff in a 50 weight engine oil. It would be useful if
your engine were ever operated under extremely abnormal conditions where
metal contacts metal: "the zinc compounds react with the metal to prevent
scuffing, particularly between cylinder bores and piston rings....unless you
plan on spending a couple of hours dragging your knee at Laguna Seca, adding
extra zinc compounds to your oil is usually a waste.... Also, keep in mind
that high zinc content can lead to deposit formation on your valves, and
spark plug fouling." [Rau]
If zinc-d is so good for your engine, why haven't oil manufacturers been
putting more of it in their standard mix of oil and additives? Actually, oil
companies have been decreasing the amount of zinc-d because of research
evidence which indicates that it seems to adversely affect catalytic
converters, causing them to deteriorate.
The bottom line is that outside of the testimonials of happy and satisfied
customers and the guarantees of company executives about the wonderful
effects that studies have shown will follow the use of their products, there
isn't much support for using oil additives. Of course, there are those
millions of customers who buy the stuff: aren't they proof that these things
really work? Not really. They're proof that this stuff really sells!
Though some additives may not contain anything harmful to your engine, and
even some things that could be beneficial, most experts still recommend that
you avoid their use. The reason for this is that your oil, as purchased from
one of the major oil companies, already contains a very extensive additive
package.
This package is made up of numerous, specific additive components, blended
to achieve a specific formula that will meet the requirements of your
engine. Usually, at least several of these additives will be synergistic.
That is, they react mutually, in groups of two or more, to create an effect
that none of them could attain individually. Changing or adding to this
formula can upset the balance and negate the protective effect the formula
was meant to achieve, even if you are only adding more of something that was
already included in the initial package.[Rau]
On the other side of the engine block are those additives which will cleanse
your engine, not coat it. Stuff like Bardahl, Rislone and Marvel Mystery Oil
claim they can make your engine run quieter and smoother; they can reduce
oil burning. These are products which contain solvents or detergents such as
kerosene, naphthalene, xylene, acetone or isopropanol. If used properly, I
suppose these products will strip off your Teflon and zinc protective
coatings! But unless you have a really old and abused car, you probably have
no need of stripping away sludge and deposits from your engine. Thus, you
probably have no need for these wonder cleaners. And, if you overuse such
products you can damage your engine by promoting metal to metal contact.
Also, if you use a synthetic oil, such as Mobil 1, you are advised not to
use any engine treatments or additives. Mobil claims that
Tests have shown that some additive supplements may significantly alter the
performance and properties of any lubricant. In several cases, additive
supplements have been detrimental to viscosity, storage stability and
reduced protection against the formation of deposits.
Finally, you may have seen the commercial where two engines are allowed to
run without any oil in them and the one which had the special oil additive
keeps on ticking after the other engine has conked out. This may be
appealing to the car owner who never changes his or her oil or who runs his
or her car without oil, but it should be of little interest to the person
who knows how to take care of their automobile.
The skeptic's advice? Change your oil and oil filter regularly and if your
car is getting old and cranky use a single viscosity oil (30 weight is
good), not a multi-viscosity such as 10-40. That multi-viscosity stuff is
for the younger set. And don't forget to change the fuel and air filters at
the recommended intervals.
TooTall
Read and Weep Gary,
FOR RELEASE: JULY 16, 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
QUAKER STATE ADS FOR SLICK 50
ARE FALSE AND MISLEADING, FTC CHARGES
The Federal Trade Commission has charged Quaker State - Slick 50, Inc., the
manufacturer of Slick 50, the best-selling auto engine treatment in the
U.S., with making false and unsubstantiated advertising claims. According to
the FTC, ads for Slick 50 that tout tests showing improved engine
performance are false and its claims of reduced engine wear are
unsubstantiated.
Quaker State - Slick 50 is based in Houston, Texas. Since its 1978
introduction, Slick 50 has attracted about 30 million users world-wide.
Slick 50 retails for about $18 a quart, and the company claims to have about
60% of the engine treatment market.
"Slick 50's ads claim that compared to motor oil alone, it reduces engine
wear, lengthens engine life, and provides a host of other benefits. The
claims sound good, but the evidence doesn't back them up,” said Jodie
Bernstein, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We believe
the ads exaggerate the lack of protection motor oils provide modern engines
at start-up, as well as the risk of premature engine failure. The premature
engine failure Slick 50 claims to guard against is uncommon, and the company
lacks reliable evidence it would be prevented by using Slick 50, in any
case," she said. "In fact, all the evidence we've seen so far suggests that
the best thing you can do for your car’s engine is to get an oil change
performed at manufacturer recommended intervals," she said. "People who want
to maximize their automobile performance and enhance its long life should
read the owner's manual and follow the directions.”
Slick 50 is the most recent in a series of FTC cases challenging allegedly
deceptive ad claims for oil additives or high octane fuel. “Last year, STP
Corporation and its parent corporation, First Brands, paid an $888,000 civil
penalty to settle FTC charges that they were making false and
unsubstantiated claims for their engine treatment," Bernstein said.
According to the FTC complaint detailing the charges in this case, Slick 50
aired television and radio commercials and published brochures carrying
claims such as:
"Every time you cold start your car without Slick 50 protection, metal
grinds against metal in your engine...
" With each turn of the ignition you do unseen damage, because at cold
start- up most of the oil is down in the pan. But Slick 50's unique
chemistry bonds to engine parts. It reduces wear up to 50% for 50, 000
miles," and;
"What makes Slick 50 Automotive Engine Formula different is an advanced
chemical support package designed to bond a specially activated PTFE to the
metal in your engine. "
According to the FTC, these claims and others falsely represented that auto
engines generally have little or no protection from wear without Slick 50.
It is uncommon, however, for engines to experience premature failure caused
by wear, whether they are treated with Slick 50 or not. Finally, the FTC
alleges that Slick 50 neither coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE nor
meets military specifications for motor oil additives.
The FTC complaint also specifically charges that Slick 50 did not have
adequate substantiation for its advertising claims that, compared to motor
oil alone, the product:
reduces engine wear;
reduces engine wear by more than 50%;
reduces engine wear by up to 50%;
reduces engine wear at start-up;
extends the duration of engine life;
lowers engine temperatures;
reduces toxic emissions;
increases gas mileage; and
increases horsepower.
The complaint also alleges that the company did not have adequate
substantiation for its advertising claims that one treatment of Slick 50
continues to reduce wear for 50,000 miles and that it has been used in a
significant number of U.S. government vehicles.
Finally, the complaint challenges ads stating that “tests prove” the engine
wear claims made by Slick 50. In fact, according to the FTC complaint, tests
do not prove that Slick 50 reduces engine wear at start up, or by 50%, or
that one treatment reduces engine wear for 50,000 miles.
The order the FTC is seeking would prohibit misrepresentations about the
benefits of using Slick 50 and require that ad claims be backed by competent
and reliable evidence. In addition, if the facts are found as alleged, and
issuance of a cease and desist order alone is inadequate to protect
consumers, the Commission may require corrective advertising or other
affirmative disclosures. It may also apply to a federal court to obtain
restitution for consumers.
The complaint also names three subsidiaries: Slick 50 Management, Inc.,
Slick 50 Products Corp., and Slick 50 Corp.
The Commission vote to issue the complaint was 5-0.
NOTE: The Commission issues a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that
the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that
a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of a complaint is not a
finding or ruling that the respondent has violated the law. The complaint
marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be ruled
upon after a formal hearing.
Copies of the complaint and an FTC brochure, "Penny Wise or Pump Fuelish"
are available from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street
and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202- 326-2222; TTY
for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. To find out the latest news as it is
announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710. FTC news
releases and other materials also are available on the Internet at the FTC's
World Wide Web site at: http.//www.ftc.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
MEDIA CONTACT:
Claudia Bourne Farrell
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181
STAFF CONTACT:
Elaine D. Kolish or Mary K. Engle
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3042 or 202-326-3161
(FTC File No. 932 3050)
(Docket No. D-9280)
(slick)
>
TooTall
I know it must hurt by now Gary, Say when you've had enough. Now would you
put this crap in your Cummins? Please say you are not that naive?. You can
read more at: http://www.ll.net/XS-XJ/tips/maint4.htm
Chapter 5 - The PTFE Mystery
Currently, the most common and popular oil additives on the market are those
that contain PTFE powders suspended in a regular, over-the-counter type,
50-rated petroleum or synthetic engine oil. PTFE is the common abbreviation
used for Polytetrafloeraethylene, more commonly known by the trade name
"Teflon," which is a registered trademark of the DuPont Chemical
Corporation. Among those oil additives we have identified as containing PTFE
are: Slick 50, Liquid Ring, Lubrilon, Microlon, Matrix, Petrolon (same
company as Slick 50), QMl, and T-Plus (K-Mart). There are probably many more
names in use on many more products using PTFE. We have found that oil
additive makers like to market their products under a multitude of "private
brand" names.
While some of these products may contain other additives in addition to
PTFE, all seem to rely on the PTFE as their primary active ingredient and
all, without exception, do not list what other ingredients they may contain.
Though they have gained rather wide acceptance among the motoring public,
oil additives containing PTFE have also garnered their share of critics
among experts in the field of lubrication. By far the most damning
testimonial against these products originally came from the DuPont Chemical
Corporation, inventor of PTFE and holder of the patents and trademarks for
Teflon. In a statement issued about ten years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers
Division Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said, "Teflon is not useful as
an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal combustion
engines."
At the time, DuPont threatened legal action against anyone who used the name
"Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in an internal combustion
engine, and refused to sell its PTFE powders to any one who intended to use
them for such purposes.
After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming DuPont could
not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont was forced to once again
begin selling their PTFE to the additive producers. The additive makers like
to claim this is some kind of "proof' that their products work, when in fact
it is nothing more than proof that the American legal ethic of "innocent
until proven guilty" is still alive and well. The decision against DuPont
involved what is called "restraint of trade." You can't refuse to sell a
product to someone just because there is a possibility they might use it for
a purpose other than what you intended it for.
It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use of PTFE in
engine oils remains carefully aloof and noncommittal, for obvious legal
reasons. DuPont states that though they sell PTFE to oil additive producers,
they have "no proof of the validity of the additive makers' claims." They
further state that they have "no knowledge of any advantage gained through
the use of PTFE in engine oil."
Fear of potential lawsuits for possible misrepresentation of a product seem
to run much higher among those with the most to lose.
After DuPont's decision and attempt to halt the use of PTFE in engine oils,
several of the oil additive companies simply went elsewhere for their PTFE
powders, such as purchasing them in other countries. In some cases, they
disguise or hype their PTFE as being something different or special by
listing it under one of their own tradenames. That doesn't change the fact
that it is still PTFE.
In addition, there is some evidence that certain supplies of PTFE powders
(from manufacturers other than DuPont) are of a cruder version than the
original, made with larger sized flakes that are more likely to "settle out"
in your oil or clog up your filters. One fairly good indication that a
product contains this kind of PTFE is if the instructions for its use advise
you to "shake well before using." It only stands to reason that if the
manufacturer knows the solids in his product will settle to the bottom of a
container while sitting on a shelf, the same thing is going to happen inside
your engine when it is left idle for any period of time.
The problem with putting PTFE in your oil, as explained to us by several
industry experts, is that PTFE is a solid. The additive makers claim this
solid "coats" the moving parts in an engine (though that is far from being
scientifically proven). Slick 50 is currently both the most aggressive
advertiser and the most popular seller, with claims of over 14 million
treatments sold. However, such solids seem even more inclined to coat
non-moving parts, like oil passages and filters. After all, if it can build
up under the pressures and friction exerted on a cylinder wall, then it
stands to reason it should build up even better in places with low pressures
and virtually no friction.
This conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil additives containing
PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center, which said in their
report, "In the types of bearing surface contact we have looked at, we have
seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen detrimental effect. The solids
in the oil tend to accumulate at inlets and act as a dam, which simply
blocks the oil from entering. Instead of helping, it is actually depriving
parts of lubricant."
Remember, PTFE in oil additives is a suspended solid. Now think about why
you have an oil filter on your engine. To remove suspended solids, right?
Right. Therefore it would seem to follow that if your oil filter is doing
its job, it will collect as much of the PTFE as possible, as quickly as
possible. This can result in a clogged oil filter and decreased oil pressure
throughout your engine.
In response to our inquiries about this sort of problem, several of the PTFE
pushers responded that their particulates were of a sub-micron size, capable
of passing through an ordinary oil filter unrestricted. This certainly
sounds good, and may in some cases actually be true, but it makes little
difference when you know the rest of the story. You see, PTFE has other
qualities besides being a friction reducer: It expands radically when
exposed to heat. So even if those particles are small enough to pass through
your filter when you purchase them, they very well may not be when your
engine reaches normal operating temperature.
Here again, the scientific evidence seems to support this, as in tests
conducted by researchers at the University of Utah Engineering Experiment
Station involving Petrolon additive with PTFE.
The Petrolon test report states, "There was a pressure drop across the oil
filter resulting from possible clogging of small passageways." In addition,
oil analysis showed that iron contamination doubled after using the
treatment, indicating that engine wear didn't go down - it appeared to shoot
up.
This particular report was paid for by Petrolon (marketers of Slick 50), and
was not all bad news for their products. The tests, conducted on a Chevrolet
six-cylinder automobile engine, showed that after treatment with the PTFE
additive the test engine's friction was reduced by 13.1 percent. Also,
output horsepower increased from 5.3 percent to 8.1 percent, and fuel
economy improved from 11.8 percent under light load to 3.8 percent under
heavy load.
These are the kind of results an aggressive marketing company like Petrolon
can really sink their teeth into. If we only reported the results in the
last paragraph to you, you'd be inclined to think Slick 50 was indeed a
magic engine elixir. What you have to keep in mind is that often times the
benefits (like increased horse power and fuel economy) may be out weighed by
some serious drawbacks (like the indications of [?])
Light, Ed
That's quite an article about PTFE.
However, it doesn't mention Tufoil. A Cummins
dealer told me it was ok to use Tufoil.
Tufoil has more than just PTFE or it would be
like slick 50.
One poster related how opening up an engine
after about 35k saw it looking better than an
engine of the same type that ran nearly the
same distance without it.
So, if your engine can run farther more
efficiently and looks ok inside, it seems to be
ok.
Thanks for sharing the article.
Light, Ed
Frank Ruff
Thank you TOO TALL for all your research in digging out
the test reports, etc. Unfortunaely, while my wife is complaining
about my not doing useful things, I have just spent several hours
surfing the WWW trying to determine the true story about the
additives.
Unfortunately, information is hard to come by on the WWW.
In doing a search for "tufoil", the first few dozen hits are all
Tuoil web pages. Not sure why they need so many unless they
are trying to crowd others out.
A search for "slick50" was slightly more successful, but nothing
really concrete either way. Actual independant test results were
not found for any product.
My conclusions from all that surfing are as follows:
1. The products apparently do little harm to the engine (though
the test results showing increased metal content in the oil
is alarming), except in the case of synthetic oils where
the carrier agent in Slick 50 combines with the synthetic
oil to form a gel which can only be removed by dissassemblng
the engine.
2. There is a possibility of a small decrease in friction,
primarily at start-up.
3. The product is grossly overpriced.
4. Manufacturers claims are grossly exaggerated.
5. The products do not produce much for test results.
Some tests, such as those done by the National Bur.
of Stds. only conclude that PTFE is a slippery substance
and have nothing to do with use in an engine.
6. Engineers in the lubrication industry seem to agree that
modern engine oils have the additives that have worked
best for preventing wear and that anything not already
in these oils was not deemed worthwhile.
Conclusion: Without any more convincing evidence than
I have seen so far, I will put my money elsewhere.
Also, I would imagine that these manufacturers are constantly
testing and improving their products so that the additives they
are selling now are much better (or less harmful) than those sold
10 or 20 years ago. In a few years, perhaps they will formulate
a product that can produce verifiable advantages.
Gary - KJ6Q
TooTall wrote in message <6jnc9k$k8l$1...@chile.it.earthlink.net>...
>>By the way - we may have a disagreement here, on this subject - but I
am
>>in NO way your enemy, and as wrong as you clearly are on this
>>subject<G>, you are no doubt a great guy in all other respects...
8^)
>
>That's a very kind comment and that expresses my own feelings. It's
kinda
>fun and that's what makes the newsgroups so interesting.
>
>Now enough ass kissing.
>
(SIGH) You've gone to a LOT of work, and spent a LOT of energy - but
have produced absolutely *ZILCH* in the way of *DOCUMENTED*, MAJOR
credible source of info! You know, the kind with supporting info like
engine types tested, miles driven, wear measured before and after - all
that neat, accurate and PROVEN material! What you have produced is
primarily an editorial piece containing vague, slanted and unproved
(documented laboratory) evidence. The stuff you have presented makes
vague references to "independent lab tests", but I only noticed the
University of Utah as one of those sources - and NASA, which might be
relevant if we drove lunar landers and space shuttles to work... Where
are the actual engines tested, mileage driven and conditions? where are
the before and after measurements?
MORE, the stuff your flawed source attacks is primarily Slick 50, rather
than the subject topic of Tufoil, or my own favorite, STP - yeah, I
noticed the brief mention of STP, as well as the total absence of ANY
documented tests or related material against STP... In other words, more
"editorial opinion", personal predjudice and unscientific assumption
rather than objective, independent and documented testing - WITH
supporting test results...
Until those who choose to attack these "snake oil" additives do ALL
their homework, and provide the same detailed analysis and real-world
testing they delight in accusing the suppliers of failing to do, we are
left to judge them in our own personal "laboratories". the real world of
RV, and daily operation - after all, if they don't work THERE, all the
BS from ANY source, pro or con, is absolutely worthless!
TRUTH is, ANY of these additives used by folks regularly trading their
vehicles every 3-5 years is undoubtedly a waste of time, money and
effort. But for some, like me, who buy and keep our stuff for the long
haul, the relatively small amount we might pay to extend equipment life
beyond "normal" lifespans MIGHT be money well spent. And unless testers
are willing and able to examine these additives over a period of many
years, under widely varying conditions and circumstances, their
"scientific" findings may be totally irrelevant to MY normal mode of
operation. Testing done on fleets of taxis or racecars are excellent
examples of engine operation that is TOTALLY unrelated to that of most
"normal" vehicle owners, and just as meaningless.
By all means, I fully agree that many, perhaps MOST aftermarket oil
related additives ARE quite likely "snakeoil ripoffs", and it is only my
OWN personal experience with a couple that have proved, to ME, to be
beneficial, that causes me to bristle just a bit, when the blanket
approach is used to paint them ALL as worthless... What REALLY counts is
what ANY of them will, or HAVE done for me, personally.
Gary - KJ6Q
Gary - KJ6Q
Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd81ef$67c6f1a0$4466efcf@dcservic>...
>Conclusion: Without any more convincing evidence than
>I have seen so far, I will put my money elsewhere.
>Also, I would imagine that these manufacturers are constantly
>testing and improving their products so that the additives they
>are selling now are much better (or less harmful) than those sold
>10 or 20 years ago. In a few years, perhaps they will formulate
>a product that can produce verifiable advantages.
>
ONE item of interest concerning ingredients found in major oil brands,
is their OWN increasing use of *additives*... I wonder exactly how many
of those additives may have been the basis for some of the "snakeoil"
additives on the market well PRIOR to their acceptance and inclusion by
the majors? One of the quotes from material provided by "Too Tall", were
in reference to STP's inclusion of zinc in their formula, and the fact
that zinc is now included in major brands specified especially by the
Ford motor company. STP was on the market LONG before any major oil
companies began including zinc in THEIR products - and ALSO during the
time STP's critics were throwing rocks and calling names like
"snakeoil", etc. Sorta makes you wonder about the possible eventual use
of teflon, and other "nasties" by the major oil companies... FRAM
*already* markets oil filters pre-loaded with teflon in the filter
material... *strange* they would DO that, with so much riding on their
reputation for a good product, and the "claims" about the clogging
factor of those evil teflon particles...
Go figure...
Gary - KJ6Q
Gary - KJ6Q
Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd8204$2d4ddec0$4066efcf@dcservic>...
>But, no supporters of Tufoil have come up with any independant
>test results so far.
You don't consider the Bureau of Standards independent? What about the 2
universities mentioned? What about the Canadian government results?
Exactly what DO you want as an "independent" agency?
There are not even any of Tufoil's test results
>on their websites.
IF you won't believe those listed above, why would you suggest you would
believe any direct from Tufoil?
You would think they would at least put their
>own test results there, even if not any from an independant test
>laboratory.
THEY *DID* put in the results listed above - you WON'T accept THOSE, and
wouldn't accept any direct from Tufoil, either, would you!
NOW, if you really did MISS the testing referred to above, either check
further up this thread, or I will be GLAD to re-post them for you...
>At least Too Tall came up with quotes from test reports from
>independant sources.
STRANGE you will so readily accept THOSE, but seem so confused about the
ones quoted by Tufoil...
I also put in a lot of time searching
>and found nothing favorable to report. There has to be a lot
>of test data somewhere. The car companies and oil companies
>have row upon row of engines running continuously until they
>break or complete an expected life cycle.
Which means exactly what?
>
>NASA does do other things than build spaceships.
Tell us about a few of them - related to automotive lubricant testing...
>
>While I use various additives in my engines, and I am not
>sure that I should be using all of them, no one has
>convinced that PTFE will do it any good.
You could actually be RIGHT about that one...
Gary - KJ6Q
Frank Ruff
> (SIGH) You've gone to a LOT of work, and spent a LOT of energy - but
> have produced absolutely *ZILCH* in the way of *DOCUMENTED*, MAJOR
> credible source of info! You know, the kind with supporting info like
> engine types tested, miles driven, wear measured before and after - all
> that neat, accurate and PROVEN material! What you have produced is
> primarily an editorial piece containing vague, slanted and unproved
> (documented laboratory) evidence. The stuff you have presented makes
> vague references to "independent lab tests", but I only noticed the
> University of Utah as one of those sources - and NASA, which might be
> relevant if we drove lunar landers and space shuttles to work... Where
> are the actual engines tested, mileage driven and conditions? where are
> the before and after measurements?
>
But, no supporters of Tufoil have come up with any independant
test results so far. There are not even any of Tufoil's test results
on their websites. You would think they would at least put their
own test results there, even if not any from an independant test
laboratory.
.
At least Too Tall came up with quotes from test reports from
independant sources. I also put in a lot of time searching
and found nothing favorable to report. There has to be a lot
of test data somewhere. The car companies and oil companies
have row upon row of engines running continuously until they
break or complete an expected life cycle.
NASA does do other things than build spaceships.
While I use various additives in my engines, and I am not
TooTall
You have come to the same conclusion I have Frank. It seems a waste of
money to me.
TooTall
You asked me to site the article, (that's your word) and I did. I simply
stated my opinion about why I would not use the stuff. The article sites
some NASA research etc..but I'm not inclined to start posting crap like that
(even if I could find it). You can take or leave it, but after reading what
I've posted, on a fool would put that stuff in his engine. Even Dupont (the
maker of this stuff says it won't help)
Gary - KJ6Q wrote in message <6jnsbs$k...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>
>TooTall wrote in message <6jnc9k$k8l$1...@chile.it.earthlink.net>...
>
>>>By the way - we may have a disagreement here, on this subject - but I
>am
>>>in NO way your enemy, and as wrong as you clearly are on this
>>>subject<G>, you are no doubt a great guy in all other respects...
>8^)
>>
>>That's a very kind comment and that expresses my own feelings. It's
>kinda
>>fun and that's what makes the newsgroups so interesting.
>>
>>Now enough ass kissing.
>>
>
>
>(SIGH) You've gone to a LOT of work, and spent a LOT of energy - but
>have produced absolutely *ZILCH* in the way of *DOCUMENTED*, MAJOR
>credible source of info! You know, the kind with supporting info like
>engine types tested, miles driven, wear measured before and after - all
>that neat, accurate and PROVEN material! What you have produced is
>primarily an editorial piece containing vague, slanted and unproved
>(documented laboratory) evidence. The stuff you have presented makes
>vague references to "independent lab tests", but I only noticed the
>University of Utah as one of those sources - and NASA, which might be
>relevant if we drove lunar landers and space shuttles to work... Where
>are the actual engines tested, mileage driven and conditions? where are
>the before and after measurements?
>
TooTall
>You don't consider the Bureau of Standards independent? What about the 2
>universities mentioned? What about the Canadian government results?
>Exactly what DO you want as an "independent" agency?
Then post them Gary. Sorry, I can't go look at the oil on your garage floor
as you suggested is your proof for how the snake oil stopped your oil leak.
This stuff is like El Ninio, it gets the credit for everything.
Gary - KJ6Q wrote in message <6jo7ef$r...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>
>Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd8204$2d4ddec0$4066efcf@dcservic>...
>>But, no supporters of Tufoil have come up with any independant
>>test results so far.
>
>You don't consider the Bureau of Standards independent? What about the 2
>universities mentioned? What about the Canadian government results?
>Exactly what DO you want as an "independent" agency?
>
>
> There are not even any of Tufoil's test results
>>on their websites.
>
>IF you won't believe those listed above, why would you suggest you would
>believe any direct from Tufoil?
>
>
>
> You would think they would at least put their
>>own test results there, even if not any from an independant test
>>laboratory.
>
>
>THEY *DID* put in the results listed above - you WON'T accept THOSE, and
>wouldn't accept any direct from Tufoil, either, would you!
>
>NOW, if you really did MISS the testing referred to above, either check
>further up this thread, or I will be GLAD to re-post them for you...
>
>>At least Too Tall came up with quotes from test reports from
>>independant sources.
>
>STRANGE you will so readily accept THOSE, but seem so confused about the
>ones quoted by Tufoil...
>
>
> I also put in a lot of time searching
>>and found nothing favorable to report. There has to be a lot
>>of test data somewhere. The car companies and oil companies
>>have row upon row of engines running continuously until they
>>break or complete an expected life cycle.
>
>Which means exactly what?
>
>>
>>NASA does do other things than build spaceships.
>
>Tell us about a few of them - related to automotive lubricant testing...
>
>
>>
>>While I use various additives in my engines, and I am not
>>sure that I should be using all of them, no one has
>>convinced that PTFE will do it any good.
>
TooTall
It's OK, it'll be filtered out on the first oil change. I'd be talking to
Cummins though and not the Cummins dealers.
Light, Ed wrote in message <355F44...@mk.net>...
>That's quite an article about PTFE.
>
>However, it doesn't mention Tufoil. A Cummins
>dealer told me it was ok to use Tufoil.
>Tufoil has more than just PTFE or it would be
>like slick 50.
>One poster related how opening up an engine
>after about 35k saw it looking better than an
>engine of the same type that ran nearly the
>same distance without it.
>
>So, if your engine can run farther more
>efficiently and looks ok inside, it seems to be
>ok.
>
>Thanks for sharing the article.
Frank Ruff
With the outstanding lubricating properties of PTFE, I would
expect that properly formulated there is a way for it to greatly enhance
engine performance. I would not be surprised to one day see it in
all motor oils. That is why I am still interested in it. I expect to
one day use it. But, no one has shown that they have
successfully done that yet.
Gary - KJ6Q <ga...@cwnet.com> wrote in article
<6jo3e7$h...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
Frank Ruff
Gary - KJ6Q <ga...@cwnet.com> wrote in article
<6jo7ef$r...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>
> Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd8204$2d4ddec0$4066efcf@dcservic>...
> >But, no supporters of Tufoil have come up with any independant
> >test results so far.
>
> You don't consider the Bureau of Standards independent? What about the 2
> universities mentioned? What about the Canadian government results?
> Exactly what DO you want as an "independent" agency?
>
But, as I stated elsewhere, the only tests cited that I found
only said that PTFE is the slickest material known to man.
No one argues that.
>
> There are not even any of Tufoil's test results
> >on their websites.
>
> IF you won't believe those listed above, why would you suggest you would
> believe any direct from Tufoil?
>
I did not find any test results on their website, other than those saying
PTFE is slick.
>
>
> You would think they would at least put their
> >own test results there, even if not any from an independant test
> >laboratory.
>
>
> THEY *DID* put in the results listed above - you WON'T accept THOSE, and
> wouldn't accept any direct from Tufoil, either, would you!
>
> NOW, if you really did MISS the testing referred to above, either check
> further up this thread, or I will be GLAD to re-post them for you...
I did not see any test data on their web site though it could have
been there and just not easy to find.
The only references to tests I saw were meaningless as they only
applied to PTFE properties, or, were just part of advertising fluff.
>
> >At least Too Tall came up with quotes from test reports from
> >independant sources.
>
> STRANGE you will so readily accept THOSE, but seem so confused about the
> ones quoted by Tufoil...
>
No confusion. No reasonable person buys a product based solely on
advertising claims (except to stop oil leaks).
But, if a car company, oil company, independant test laboratory,
govt. test agency, consumer testing laboratory, or anything similar
comes up with a favorable report, I will buy the product.
Now, as I am sure that these companies are making changes to
improve their product, any unfavorable tests more than a few
years old should be discounted.
>
> I also put in a lot of time searching
> >and found nothing favorable to report. There has to be a lot
> >of test data somewhere. The car companies and oil companies
> >have row upon row of engines running continuously until they
> >break or complete an expected life cycle.
>
> Which means exactly what?
>
That there is a lot of test data out there somewhere. Car companies
and oil companies have come to a lot of conclusions because a
test report is written up for every test conducted. You can be sure
that PTFE products have been tested many times.
> >
> >NASA does do other things than build spaceships.
>
> Tell us about a few of them - related to automotive lubricant testing...
>
I don't know about automotive lubricant testing and don't know
where to find the info. I do know they do get involved in research
for transportation other than space-flight and that they "might"
have tested PTFE products. Might have some relevance but
I would not expect their research to be that beneficial as they
would probably use the products differently than you or I.
Light, Ed
TooTall wrote:
>
> It's OK, it'll be filtered out on the first oil change. I'd be talking to
> Cummins though and not the Cummins dealers.
>
> Light, Ed wrote in message <355F44...@mk.net>...
> >That's quite an article about PTFE.
> >
> >However, it doesn't mention Tufoil. A Cummins
> >dealer told me it was ok to use Tufoil.
Unfortunately the FAQ at the Tufoil web site is hidden
away.
http://www.tufoil.com/faq.htm
What it says about Tufoil sticking in oil filters:
~OIL FILTERS~
Most oil filters on modern cars pass particles that
are smaller than 10 microns (that's very small).
The PTFE particles in Tufoil are in the range of .5 to
.05 microns and pass through the filter as if
it wasn't even there! Bulk filters that use the big
wads of cellulose or edge on toilet paper rolls
filter fine. There aren't too many around but one
of the manufacturers of such a filter
recommends the use of Tufoil.
~OIL BURNING~
Many old engines show signs of oil burning
Tufoil can help in some cases. It frees up partially
sticking piston rings. Symptom: Puff of blue
smoke when starting in the morning or after sitting a
while This is usually caused by the deterioration or
stiffening of the oil seals on valve stems. The
problem is caused because the manufacturers do
not use the proper rubber in the seals (viton) in
the first place. It costs too much. The only solution
is to live with the blue puffs or replace the
seals. No lubricant will correct the problem although
thicker oil can reduce it. Constant blue (or
oil pumping) in some cases, is due to sticking piston
oil rings. There have been some dramatic
improvements reported from the field where Tufoil
freed up the rings and they started working
properly again. If the rings are cemented solid in
their grooves or the cylinder is scored, no
lubricant can eliminate the smoking.
Light, Ed
Actually they will mail you all the test results
your heart could desire.
Light, Ed
Frank Ruff wrote:
>
> With the outstanding lubricating properties of PTFE, I would
> expect that properly formulated there is a way for it to greatly enhance
> engine performance. I would not be surprised to one day see it in
> all motor oils. That is why I am still interested in it. I expect to
> one day use it. But, no one has shown that they have
> successfully done that yet.
Unfortunately the FAQ at the Tufoil web site is hidden
away.
http://www.tufoil.com/faq.htm
--
Gary - KJ6Q
TooTall wrote in message <6jphik$97d$1...@suriname.it.earthlink.net>...
Gary wrote
>>You don't consider the Bureau of Standards independent? What about the
2
>>universities mentioned? What about the Canadian government results?
>>Exactly what DO you want as an "independent" agency?
>
Too Tall challenges
>Then post them Gary. Sorry, I can't go look at the oil on your garage
floor
>as you suggested is your proof for how the snake oil stopped your oil
leak.
>This stuff is like El Ninio, it gets the credit for everything.
>
HOKEE DOKEE - here goes...
<Stuff from Tufoil's page follows, with snippage... AND those wanting
documentation of actual tests can simply call the 800 number at the
bottom for detailed info, or merely go to www.tuffoil.com for their web
pages>
>Well, we've got "real" lab technicians who don't have to resort to
"entertaining infomercials" to make a point. They rely on the facts'.
One of the facts that makes Tufoil stand out from the rest is the
testing done by the United States Government at the National Bureau of
Standards (now NIST). Their results proved that the surface friction of
Tufoil is .029. That makes Tufoil, the most slippery substance know to
man." (Just for the record, Teflon's surface friction measures .04.)
<THERE'S that National Bureau of Standards for you...>
Recently, that same 4-ball apparatus (which best simulates the
conditions inside the engine) compared Tufoil to most of the well-known
lubricants. The results were astonishing...even to us! After just
minutes (13 or less to be exact) each of the others had burned out.
Tufoil ran an incredible 16 DAYS while the competitive lubricants broke
down in just minutes! .
~DIESELS (AUTOMOTIVE) ~
Recent tests by the well-known cold regions independent test lab at
Kapuskasing in Canada show that Tufoil increases the cranking speed of
cold diesels by 9.6%. That means a big improvement in starting when it's
cold. Naturally, easier starting means that your battery life should be
greatly extended, as well! Users report startling acceleration with
diesels using Tufoil. Reports of improved diesel performance at high
altitudes (mountains) are now coming in.
<THERE'S that Canadian government reference...>
~OIL FILTERS~
Most oil filters on modern cars pass particles that are smaller than 10
microns (that's very small). The PTFE particles in Tufoil are in the
range of .5 to .05 microns and pass through the filter as if it wasn't
even there! Bulk filters that use the big wads of cellulose or edge on
toilet paper rolls filter fine. There aren't too many around but one of
the manufacturers of such a filter recommends the use of Tufoil.
~OLDER ENGINES~
Modern engines all run on detergent oils and stay very clean internally.
Tufoil can be used in them without any precaution. If you have an old
classic that ran on oils before 1950, we recommend taking the engine
apart and physically cleaning the sludge out of the crankcase and out of
the valve covers. A high detergent oil can stir that material up and
cause problems. We sell Tufoil to a major car rental company that deals
primarily in older vehicles. Here are their own words. "We have been
using the full 8 ounces of Tufoil in our rental vehicles at every oil
change and the results have been outstanding. Since we are using older
vehicles in our rental fleet, most are over 100,000 miles, we are
showing little or no oil consumption while the product is being used."
~STARTING- SUMMER
When an engine is driven at turnpike speeds during hot weather, shut
down and restarted while still hot, some times problems develop. The
parts have clamped together and must cool to loosen the engine. Tufoil
helps prevent the clamping of hot parts and you will find hot starting
much easier. New laboratory test data shows that engine oil runs 42%
cooler with Tufoil.
<THERE'S a reference to lab test data, call for it if interested...>
~STARTING (WINTER)~
What better place to test cold starts but in Canada! The Canadian
Government tested Tufoil at their cold regions lab in Kapuskasing and
found an increase of nearly 1O% in cranking speed! An improvement your
battery can live with. If your battery is weak or connections a bit
corroded, your chances of starting will be greatly improved! Their tests
also showed an improvement in fuel economy during cold weather
operation.
~WEAR~
We have run thousands of abrasion tests in our lab over the last 25
years. The latest, which we appropriately call our "Smoking/Non-smoking"
test really shows how Tufoil stands out from the rest. One at a time, we
placed each of the lubricants on the 4-ball apparatus (used by the
National Bureau of Standards). Within 13 minutes or less each one had
burned up engulfed in smoke! When we placed Tufoil under the same
conditions, we had to put away the clock and run for a calendar! Tufoil
ran for an astonishing 16 days before we even noticed a wisp of smoke!
(We name names and tell it like it is. So call us and we'll be happy to
send you the test FREE of charge!)
<THERE is where they clearly offer to provide detailed test info...>
~WHEEL BEARING GREASE~
Wheel bearing and chassis greases benefit from the addition of Tufoil.
Don't use too much or the stiffness of the grease will be lost. It will
become too fluid. Mix about one part Tufoil to ten parts grease. Mix
thoroughly so the final product is uniform. Remember! In disk brake
cars, the disks get very hot due to braking, not friction from the
bearings. If you use too much Tufoil, the grease's melting point can
drop too low and cause it to run out of the bearing.
SOURCE: United States Government
THEIR FINDINGS: Surface friction of .029
WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU! Smoothest operation possible
SOURCE: Canadian Government
THEIR FINDINGS: 10% increase in cranking speed
WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU! Easy starts, extended battery life
SOURCE: 1996 Guinness Book of World Records
THEIR FINDINGS: "The World's Most Efficient Lubricant"
WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU: Best gas mileage & performance Engine life can be
"doubled"
What would be the point of using anything else?
Call 1-800-922-0075 today and see for yourself what real "efficiency"
means!
Welcome to the winning team!
Gary - KJ6Q
Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd8275$f5e741c0$234531d1@dcservic>...
>
>
>Gary - KJ6Q <ga...@cwnet.com> wrote in article
><6jo7ef$r...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>>
>> Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd8204$2d4ddec0$4066efcf@dcservic>...
>> >But, no supporters of Tufoil have come up with any independant
>> >test results so far.
>>
the 2
>> universities mentioned? What about the Canadian government results?
>> Exactly what DO you want as an "independent" agency?
>>
>
>only said that PTFE is the slickest material known to man.
>No one argues that.
>
>>
NBS declared *Tufoil* to possess a surface friction *LOWER* than that of
Teflon... NOW, is THAT clear enough, AND from an "independent" source to
boot!
>Well, we've got "real" lab technicians who don't have to resort to
"entertaining infomercials" to make a point. They rely on the facts'.
One of the facts that makes Tufoil stand out from the rest is the
testing done by the United States Government at the National Bureau of
Standards (now NIST). Their results proved that the surface friction of
Tufoil is .029. That makes Tufoil, the most slippery substance know to
man." (Just for the record, Teflon's surface friction measures .04.)
>> There are not even any of Tufoil's test results
>> >on their websites.
If you will just read below, you will find both comments referring to
their tests, AND the clear offer to SEND YOU their complete test
results.. Did you bother to read ANY of the beginning material of this
thread? *I* had NO trouble locating ANY of this stuff - and I don't even
CARE about Tufoil or its claims...
What better place to test cold starts but in Canada! The Canadian
Government tested Tufoil at their cold regions lab in Kapuskasing and
found an increase of nearly 1O% in cranking speed! An improvement your
battery can live with. If your battery is weak or connections a bit
corroded, your chances of starting will be greatly improved! Their tests
also showed an improvement in fuel economy during cold weather
operation.
~WEAR~
We have run thousands of abrasion tests in our lab over the last 25
years. The latest, which we appropriately call our "Smoking/Non-smoking"
test really shows how Tufoil stands out from the rest. One at a time, we
placed each of the lubricants on the 4-ball apparatus (used by the
National Bureau of Standards). Within 13 minutes or less each one had
burned up engulfed in smoke! When we placed Tufoil under the same
conditions, we had to put away the clock and run for a calendar! Tufoil
ran for an astonishing 16 days before we even noticed a wisp of smoke!
(We name names and tell it like it is. So call us and we'll be happy to
send you the test FREE of charge!)
<THERE is where they clearly offer to provide detailed test info...>
SOURCE: United States Government
THEIR FINDINGS: Surface friction of .029
WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU! Smoothest operation possible
SOURCE: Canadian Government
THEIR FINDINGS: 10% increase in cranking speed
WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU! Easy starts, extended battery life
SOURCE: 1996 Guinness Book of World Records
THEIR FINDINGS: "The World's Most Efficient Lubricant"
WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU: Best gas mileage & performance Engine life can be
"doubled"
What would be the point of using anything else?
Call 1-800-922-0075 today and see for yourself what real "efficiency"
means!
Welcome to the winning team!
>>
>> IF you won't believe those listed above, why would you suggest you
would
>> believe any direct from Tufoil?
>>
>
>I did not find any test results on their website, other than those
saying
>PTFE is slick.
>
YOU no longer can make THAT claim!
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> You would think they would at least put their
>> >own test results there, even if not any from an independant test
>> >laboratory.
>>
>>
>> THEY *DID* put in the results listed above - you WON'T accept THOSE,
and
>> wouldn't accept any direct from Tufoil, either, would you!
>>
>> NOW, if you really did MISS the testing referred to above, either
check
>> further up this thread, or I will be GLAD to re-post them for you...
>
>I did not see any test data on their web site though it could have
>been there and just not easy to find.
>
>The only references to tests I saw were meaningless as they only
>applied to PTFE properties, or, were just part of advertising fluff.
>
>
>
All this was really just a waste of my time, wasn't it Frank...
Gary - KJ6Q (shaking head in disbelief...)
Glen Grant
TooTall wrote:
>
> You asked me to site the article, (that's your word) and I did. I simply
> stated my opinion about why I would not use the stuff. The article sites
> some NASA research etc..but I'm not inclined to start posting crap like that
> (even if I could find it). You can take or leave it, but after reading what
> I've posted, on a fool would put that stuff in his engine. Even Dupont (the
> maker of this stuff says it won't help)
>
> Gary - KJ6Q wrote in message <6jnsbs$k...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >TooTall wrote in message <6jnc9k$k8l$1...@chile.it.earthlink.net>...
> >
> >am
> >>>in NO way your enemy, and as wrong as you clearly are on this
> >>>subject<G>, you are no doubt a great guy in all other respects...
> >8^)
> >>
> >>That's a very kind comment and that expresses my own feelings. It's
> >kinda
> >>fun and that's what makes the newsgroups so interesting.
> >>
> >>Now enough ass kissing.
> >>
> >
> >
fewer
new cars which is where Dupont makes it's money by selling automotive
finishes not
by selling the small amount they use in the additives ...
Glen Grant
would last longer thus creating a situation
where they sell less new cars , thus leading to higher unemployment and
the government doesn't want to deal with that !!!!! I have used it for
years without any problems whatsoever , and their "IS" a noticeable
smoothness to the engine after using the Tufoil which I attribute to the
decreased friction . Does this prove anything ? Probably not but I
sure can tell how my engine is running at any particualer time and this
additive does help . This was one of the first additives to come out so
it's been out a long time . Everyone likes
to quote sources and Popular Mechanics tested this and says it does work
. So it comes down to if you want to use it go ahead , if you don't
then don't use it .
Dane
I think Tootall posted an article about NASA and a state university that
found negative things about Slick 50, et al...I found the article
today....and Tootall, I don't think you include the entire article..you
seemed to have snipped selected entries...however the overall gist of the
article is still against oil additives though....here's the entire
article..
Snake Oil!
Is That Additive Really A Negative?
Article by Fred Rau
Information for this article was compiled from reports and studies by the
University of Nevada Desert Research Center, DuPont Chemical Company, Avco
Lycoming (aircraft engine manufacturers), North Dakota State University,
Briggs and Stratton (engine manufacturers), the University of Utah
Engineering
Experiment Station, California State Polytechnic College and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Lewis Research Center.
Road Rider does not claim to have all the answers. Nor do we care to
presume
to tell you what to do. We have simply tried to provide you with all the
information we were able to dredge up on this subject, in hopes it will
help
you in making your own, informed decision.
You Can't Tell The Players Without A Program
On starting this project, we set out to find as many different oil
additives
as we could buy. That turned out to be a mistake. There were simply too
many
available! At the very first auto parts store we visited, there were over
two
dozen different brand names available. By the end of the day, we had
identified over 40 different oil additives for sale and realized we needed
to
rethink our strategy.
First of all, we found that if we checked the fine print on the packages,
quite a number of the additives came from the same manufacturer. Also, we
began to notice that the additives could be separated into basic "groups"
that
seemed to carry approximately the same ingredients and the same promises.
In the end, we divided our additives into four basic groups and purchased
at
least three brands from three different manufacturers for each group. We
defined our four groups this way:
1.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular 50-rated engine
oil
(including standard additives) with PTFE (Teflon TM) added.
2.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular 50-rated engine
oil
(including standard additives) with zinc dialkyldithiophosphate added.
3.) Products containing (as near as we could determine) much the same
additives as are already found in most major brands of engine oil, though
in
different quantities and combinations.
4.) Products made up primarily of solvents and/or detergents.
There may be some differences in chemical makeup within groups, but that
is
impossible to tell since the additive manufacturers refuse to list the
specific ingredients of their products. We will discuss each group
individually.
The PTFE Mystery
proven guilty" is still alive and well. The decision against Dupont
involved
what is called "restraint of trade." You can't refuse to sell a product to
someone just because there is a possibility they might use it for a purpose
other than what you intended it for.
It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use of PTFE in
engine oils remains carefully aloof and non-commital, for obvious legal
additive the test engine's friction was reduced by 13.1 per- cent. Also,
output horsepower increased from 5.3 percent to 8.1 percent, and fuel
economy
improved from 11.8 percent under light load to 3.8 percent under heavy
load.
These are the kind of results an aggressive marketing company like
Petrolon
can really sink their teeth into. If we only reported the results in the
last
paragraph to you, you'd be inclined to think Slick 50 was indeed a magic
engine elixir. What you have to keep in mind is that often times the
benefits
(like increased horse power and fuel economy) may be out weighed by some
serious drawbacks (like the indications of reduced oil pressure and
increased
wear rate).
The Plot Thickens
Just as we were about to go to press with this article, we were contacted
by
the public relations firm of Trent and Company, an outfit with a
prestigious
address in the Empire State Building, New York. They advised us they were
working for a company called QMI out of Lakeland, Florida, that was
marketing
a "technological breakthrough" product in oil additives. Naturally, we
asked
them to send us all pertinent information, including any testing and
research data.
What we got was pretty much what we expected. QMI's oil additive,
according
to their press release, uses "ten times more PTFE resins than its closest
competitor." Using the "unique SX-6000 formula," they say they are the only
company to use "aqueous dispersion resin which means the microns (particle
sizes) are extensively smaller and can penetrate tight areas." This, they
claim, "completely eliminates the problem of clogged filters and oil
passages."
Intrigued by their press release, we set up a telephone interview with
their
Vice-President of Technical Services, Mr. Owen Heatwole. Mr. Heatwole's
name
was immediately recognized by us as one that had popped in earlier research
of
this subject as a former employee of Petrolon, a company whose name seems
inextricably linked in some fashion or another with virtually every
PTFE-related additive maker in the country.
Mr. Heatwole was a charming and persuasive talker with a knack for
avoiding
direct answers as good as any seasoned politician. His glib pitch for his
product was the best we've ever heard, but when dissected and pared down to
the verifiable facts, it actually said very little.
When we asked about the ingredients in QMI's treatments, we got almost
exactly the response we expected. Mr. Heatwole said he would "have to avoid
discussing specifics about the formula, for proprietary reasons."
After telling us that QMI was being used by "a major oil company," a
"nuclear
plant owned by a major corporation" and a "major engine manufacturer," Mr.
Heatwole followed up with, "Naturally, I can't reveal their names- for
proprietary reasons."
He further claimed to have extensive testing and research data available
from
a "major laboratory," proving conclusively how effective QMI was. When we
asked for the name of the lab, can you guess? Yup, "We can't give out that
information, for proprietary reasons."
What QMI did give us was the typical "testimonials," though we must admit
theirs came from more recognizable sources than usual. They seem to have
won
over the likes of both Team Kawasaki and Bobby Unser, who evidently endorse
and use QMI in their racing engines. Mr. Heatwole was very proud of the
fact
that their product was being used in engines that he himself admitted are
"torn down and completely inspected on a weekly basis." Of course, what he
left out is that those same engines are almost totally rebuilt every time
they're torn down. So what does that prove in terms of his product reducing
wear and promoting engine longevity? Virtually nothing.
Mr. Heatwole declined to name the source of QMI's PTFE supply "for
proprietary reasons." He bragged that their product is sold under many
different private labels, but refused to identify those labels "for
proprietary reasons." When asked about the actual size of the PTFE
particles
used in QMI, he claimed they were measured as "sub-micron in size" by a
"major
motor laboratory" which he couldn't identify - you guessed it - for
"proprietary reasons."
After about an hour of listening to "don't quote me on this," "I'll have
to
deny that if you print it," and "I can't reveal that," we asked Mr.
Heatwole
if there was something we could print. "Certainly," he said, "Here's a good
quote for you: 'The radical growth in technology has overcome the problem
areas associated with PTFE in the I980s'"
"Not bad," we said. Then we asked to whom we might attribute this gem of
wisdom. DuPont Chemical, perhaps?
"Me," said Mr. Heatwole. "I said that."
QMI's press releases like to quote the Guinness Book Of Records in saying
that PTFE is "The slickest substance known to man." Far be it from us to
take
exception to the Guinness Book, but we doubt that PTFE is much slicker than
some of the people marketing it.
The Zinc Question
The latest "miracle ingredient" in oil additives, attempting to usurp
PTFE's
cure-all throne, is zinc dialkyldithiophosphate, which we will refer to
hereafter as simply "zinc."
Purveyors of the new zinc-related products claim they can prove absolute
superiority over the PTFE-related products. Naturally, the PTFE crowd claim
exactly the same, in reverse.
Zinc is contained as part of the standard additive package in virtually
every
major brand of engine oil sold today, varying from a low volume of 0.10 per
cent in brands such as Valvoline All Climate and Chevron l5W-50, to a high
volume of 0.20 percent in brands such as Valvoline Race and Pennzoil GT
Performance.
Organic zinc compounds are used as extreme pressure, anti-wear additives,
and
are therefore found in larger amounts in oils specifically blended for
high-revving, turbocharged or racing applications. The zinc in your oil
comes
into play only when there is actual metal-to-metal con tact within your
engine, which should never occur under normal operating conditions.
However,
if you race your bike, or occasionally play tag with the redline on the
tach,
the zinc is your last line of defense. Under extreme conditions, the zinc
compounds react with the metal to prevent scuffing, particularly between
cylinder bores and piston rings.
However - and this is the important part to remember - available research
shows that more zinc does not give you more protection, it merely prolongs
the
protection if the rate of metal-to-metal contact is abnormally high or
extended. So unless you plan on spending a couple of hours dragging your
knee
at Laguna Seca, adding extra zinc compounds to your oil is usually a waste.
Also, keep in mind that high zinc content can lead to deposit formation on
your valves, and spark plug fouling.
Among the products we found containing zinc dialkyldithiophosphate were
Mechanics Brand Engine Tune Up, K Mart Super Oil Treatment, and STP Engine
Treatment With XEP2. The only reason we can easily identify the additives
with
the new zinc compounds is that they are required to carry a Federally
mandated
warning label indicating they contain a hazardous substance. The zinc
phosphate they contain is a known eye irritant, capable of inflicting
severe
harm if it comes in contact with your eyes. If you insist on using one of
these products, please wear protective goggles and exercise extreme
caution.
As we mentioned, organic zinc compounds are already found in virtually
every
major brand of oil, both automotive and motorcycle. However, in recent
years
the oil companies voluntarily reduced the amount of zinc content in most of
their products after research indicated the zinc was responsible for
premature
deterioration and damage to catalytic converters. Obviously this situation
would not affect 99 percent of all the motorcycles on the road - however,
it
could have been a factor with the newer BMW converter - equipped bikes.
Since the reduction in zinc content was implemented solely for the
protection
of catalytic converters, it is possible that some motorcycles might benefit
from a slight increase in zinc content in their oils. This has been taken
into
account by at least one oil company, Spectro, which offers 0.02 to 0.03
percent more zinc compounds in its motorcycle oils than in its automotive
oils.
Since Spectro (Golden 4 brand, in this case) is a synthetic blend
lubricant
designed for extended drain intervals, this increase seems to be wholly
justified. Also, available research indicates that Spectro has, in this
case,
achieved a sensible balance for extended application without increasing the
zinc content to the point that it is likely to cause spark plug fouling or
present a threat to converter- equipped BMW models.
It would appear that someone at Spectro did their homework.
Increased Standard Additives, (More Is Not Necessarily Better)
Though some additives may not contain anything harmful to your engine, and
even some things that could be beneficial, most experts still recommend
that
you avoid their use. The reason for this is that your oil, as purchased
from
one of the major oil companies, already contains a very extensive additive
package.
This package is made up of numerous, specific additive components, blended
to
achieve a specific formula that will meet the requirements of your engine.
Usually, at least several of these additives will be synergistic. That is,
they react mutually, in groups of two or more, to create an effect that
none
of them could attain individually. Changing or adding to this formula can
upset the balance and negate the protective effect the formula was meant to
achieve, even if you are only adding more of something that was already
included in the initial package.
If it helps, try to think of your oil like a cake recipe. Just because the
original recipe calls for two eggs (which makes for a very moist and tasty
cake), do you think adding four more eggs is going to make the cake better?
Of
course not. You're going to upset the carefully calculated balance of
ingredients and magnify the effect the eggs have on the recipe to the point
that it ruins the entire cake. Adding more of a specific additive already
contained in your oil is likely to produce similar results.
This information should also be taken into account when adding to the oil
already in your bike or when mixing oils for any reason, such as synthetic
with petroleum. In these cases, always make sure the oils you are putting
together have the same rating (SA, SE, SC, etc.). This tells you their
additive packages are basically the same, or at least compatible, and are
less
likely to upset the balance or counteract each other.
Detergents And Solvents
Many of the older, better-known oil treatments on the market do not make
claims nearly so lavish as the new upstarts. Old standbys like Bardahl,
Rislone and Marvel Mystery Oil, instead offer things like "quieter
lifters,"
"reduced oil burning" and a "cleaner engine."
Most of these products are made up of solvents and detergents designed to
dissolve sludge and carbon deposits inside your engine so they can be
flushed
or burned out. Wynn's Friction Proofing Oil, for example, is 83 percent
kerosene. Other brands use naphthalene, xylene, acetone and isopropanol.
Usually, these ingredients will be found in a base of standard mineral oil.
In general, these products are designed to do just the opposite of what
the
PTFE and zinc phosphate additives claim to do. Instead of leaving behind a
"coating" or a "plating" on your engine surfaces, they are designed to
strip
away such things.
All of these products will strip sludge and deposits out and clean up your
engine, particularly if it is an older, abused one. The problem is, unless
you
have some way of determining just how much is needed to remove your
deposits
without going any further, such solvents also can strip away the boundary
lubrication layer provided by your oil. Overuse of solvents is an easy trap
to
fall into, and one which can promote harmful metal-to-metal contact within
your engine.
As a general rule of thumb these products had their place and were at
least
moderately useful on older automobile and motorcycle engines of the Fifties
and Sixties, but are basically unneeded on the more efficient engine
designs
of the past two decades.
The Infamous "No Oil" Demo
At at least three major motorcycle rallies this past year, we have
witnessed
live demonstrations put on to demonstrate the effectiveness of certain oil
additives. The demonstrators would have a bench-mounted engine which they
would fill with oil and a prescribed dose of their "miracle additive."
After
running the engine for a while they would stop it, drain out the oil and
start
it up again. Instant magic! The engine would run perfectly well for hours
on
end, seemingly proving the effectiveness of the additive which had
supposedly
"coated" the inside of the engine so well it didn't even need the oil to
run.
In one case, we saw this done with an actual motorcycle, which would be
ridden
around the parking lot after having its oil drained. A pretty convincing
demonstration - until you know the facts.
Since some of these demonstrations were conducted using Briggs and
Stratton
engines, the Briggs and Stratton Company itself decided to run a similar,
but
somewhat more scientific, experiment. Taking two brand-new, identical
engines
straight off their assembly line, they set them up for bench-testing. The
only
difference was that one had the special additive included with its oil and
the
other did not. Both were operated for 20 hours before being shut down and
having the oil drained from them. Then both were started up again and
allowed
to run for another 20 straight hours. Neither engine seemed to have any
problem performing this "minor miracle."
After the second 20-hour run, both engines were completely torn down and
inspected by the company's engineers. What they found was that both engines
suffered from scored crankpin bearings, but the engine treated with the
additive also suffered from heavy cylinder bore damage that was not evident
on
the untreated engine.
This points out once again the inherent problem with particulate oil
additives: They can cause oil starvation. This is particularly true in the
area of piston rings, where there is a critical need for adequate oil flow.
In
practically all of the reports and studies on oil additives, and
particularly
those involving suspended solids like PTFE, this has been reported as a
major
area of engine damage.
The Racing Perspective
Among the most convincing testimonials in favor of oil additives are those
that come from professional racers or racing teams. As noted previously,
some
of the oil additive products actually are capable of producing less engine
friction, better gas mileage and higher horsepower out put. In the world of
professional racing, the split-second advantage that might be gained from
using such a product could be the difference between victory and defeat.
Virtually all of the downside or detrimental effects attached to these
products are related to extended, long-term usage. For short-life,
high-revving, ultra-high performance engines designed to last no longer
than
one racing season (or in some cases, one single race), the long-term
effects
of oil additives need not even be considered.
Racers also use special high-adhesion tires that give much better traction
and control than our normal street tires, but you certainly wouldn't want
to
go touring on them, since they're designed to wear out in several hundred
(or
less) miles. Just because certain oil additives may be beneficial in a
competitive context is no reason to believe they would be equally
beneficial
in a touring context.
The Best of The Worst
Not all engine oil additives are as potentially harmful as some of those
we
have described here. However, the best that can be said of those that have
not
proved to be harmful is that they haven't been proved to offer any real
benefits, either. In some cases, introducing an additive with a compatible
package of components to your oil in the right proportion and at the right
time can conceivably extend the life of your oil. However, in every case we
have studied it proves out that it would actually have been cheaper to
simply
change the engine oil instead.
In addition, recent new evidence has come to light that makes using almost
any additive a game of Russian Roulette. Since the additive distributors do
not list the ingredients contained within their products, you never know
for
sure just what you are putting in your engine.
Recent tests have shown that even some of the most inoffensive additives
contain products which, though harmless in their initial state, convert to
hydrofluoric acid when exposed to the temperatures inside a firing
cylinder.
This acid is formed as part of the exhaust gases, and though it is
instantly
expelled from your engine and seems to do it no harm, the gases collect
inside
your exhaust system and eat away at your mufflers from the inside out.
Whatever The Market Will Bear
The pricing of oil additives seems to follow no particular pattern
whatsoever. Even among those products that seem to be almost identical,
chemically, retail prices covered an extremely wide range. For example:
One 32-ounce bottle of Slick 50 (with PTFE) cost us $29.95 at a discount
house that listed the retail price as $59.95, while a 32-ounce bottle of
T-Plus (which claims to carry twice as much PTFE as the Slick 50) cost us
only $15.88.
A 32-ounce bottle of STP Engine Treatment (containing what they call
XEP2),
which they claim they can prove "outperforms leading PTFE engine
treatments,"
cost us $17.97. Yet a can of K Mart Super Oil Treatment, which listed the
same
zinc-derivative ingredient as that listed for the XEP2, cost us a paltry
$2.67.
Industry experts estimate that the actual cost of producing most oil
additives is from one-tenth to one-twentieth of the asking retail price.
Certainly no additive manufacturer has come forward with any exotic,
high-cost
ingredient or list of ingredients to dispute this claim. As an interesting
note along with this, back before there was so much competition in the
field
to drive prices down, Petrolon (Slick 50) was selling their PTFE products
for
as much as $400 per treatment! The words "buyer beware" seem to take on
very
real significance when talking about oil additives.
The Psychological Placebo
You have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating against oil
additives, why so many of us still buy them. That's the million-dollar
question, and it's just as difficult to answer as why so many of us smoke
cigarettes, drink hard liquor or engage in any other number of questionable
activities. We know they aren't good for us - but we go ahead and do them
anyway.
Part of the answer may lie in what some psychiatrists call the
"psychological
placebo effect." Simply put, that means that many of us hunger for that
peace
of mind that comes with believing we have purchased the absolute best or
most
protection we can possibly get.
Even better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comes with
thinking
we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessing knowledge of something
just a
bit better than everyone else.
Then again, perhaps it comes from an ancient, deep-seated need we all seem
to
have to believe in magic. There has never been any shortage of unscrupulous
types ready to cash in on our willingness to believe that there's some
magical
mystery potion we can buy to help us lose weight, grow hair, attract the
opposite sex or make our engines run longer and better. I doubt that
there's a
one of us who hasn't fallen for one of these at least once in our
lifetimes.
We just want it to be true so bad that we can't help ourselves.
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, "1
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
actu ally 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 someone 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 pack age 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.
In Conclusion
The major oil companies are some of the richest, most powerful and
aggressive
corporations in world. They own multi-million dollar research facilities
manned by some of the best chemical engineers money can hire. It is
probably
safe to say that any one of them has the capabilities and resources at hand
in
marketing, distribution, advertising, research and product development
equal
to 20 times that of any of the independent additive companies. It therefore
stands to reason that if any of these additive products were actually
capable
of improving the capabilities of engine lubricants, the major oil companies
would have been able to determine that and to find some way to cash in on
it.
Yet of all the oil additives we found, none carried the name or
endorsement
of any of the major oil producers.
In addition, all of the major vehicle and engine manufacturers spend
millions
of dollars each year trying to increase the longevity of their products,
and
millions more paying off warranty claims when their products fail. Again,
it
only stands to reason that if they thought any of these additives would
increase the life or improve the performance of their engines, they would
be
actively using and selling them - or at least endorsing their use.
Instead, many of them advise against the use of these additives and, in
some
cases, threaten to void their warranty coverage if such things are found to
be
used in their products.
In any story of this nature, absolute "facts" are virtually impossible to
come by. Opinions abound. Evidence that points one direction or the other
is
available, but has to be carefully ferreted out, and is not always totally
reliable or completely verifiable.
In this environment, conclusions reached by known, knowledgeable experts
in
the field must be given a certain amount of weight. Conclusions reached by
unknown, unidentifiable sources must be discounted almost totally. That
which
is left must be weighed, one side against the other, in an attempt to reach
a
"reasonable" conclusion.
In the case of oil additives, there is a considerable volume of evidence
against their effectiveness. This evidence comes from well-known and
identifiable expert sources, including independent research laboratories,
state universities, major engine manufacturers, and even NASA.
Against this rather formidable barrage of scientific research, additive
makers offer not much more than their own claims of effectiveness, plus
questionable and totally unscientific personal testimonials. Though the
purveyors of these products state they have studies from other independent
laboratories supporting their claims, they refuse to identify the labs or
provide copies of the research. The only test results they will share are
those from their own testing departments, which must, by their very nature,
be
taken with a rather large grain of salt.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dane
Light, Ed <m...@mk.net> wrote in article <356077...@mk.net>...
> Unfortunately the FAQ at the Tufoil web site is hidden
> away.
> http://www.tufoil.com/faq.htm
>
> What it says about Tufoil sticking in oil filters:
>
>
> ~OIL FILTERS~
>
> Most oil filters on modern cars pass particles that
> are smaller than 10 microns (that's very small).
> The PTFE particles in Tufoil are in the range of .5 to
> .05 microns and pass through the filter as if
> it wasn't even there!
But what you didn't say here is that PTFE expands greatly in heat....
Enough to become greater than 10 microns? I dunno...
TooTall
I think the bottom line Gary is that Dupont the make of PTFE says the stuff
don't work. What else do you need? You really want this crap to work very,
very bad don't you. To the extent that you'll even ignore what the maker of
this stuff says it won't do. If you've read everything I've posted you'll
never use the stuff again. Whether you'll admit it or not I think you've
learned something.
Gary - KJ6Q wrote in message <6jqhsg$d...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd8275$f5e741c0$234531d1@dcservic>...
>>
>>
>>Gary - KJ6Q <ga...@cwnet.com> wrote in article
>><6jo7ef$r...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>>>
>>> Frank Ruff wrote in message <01bd8204$2d4ddec0$4066efcf@dcservic>...
>>> >But, no supporters of Tufoil have come up with any independant
>>> >test results so far.
>>>
>>> You don't consider the Bureau of Standards independent? What about
>the 2
>>> universities mentioned? What about the Canadian government results?
>>> Exactly what DO you want as an "independent" agency?
>>>
>>
>>But, as I stated elsewhere, the only tests cited that I found
>>only said that PTFE is the slickest material known to man.
>>No one argues that.
>>
>>>
>(SIGH!) Read the quote below from Tufoil, which CLEARLY states that the
>NBS declared *Tufoil* to possess a surface friction *LOWER* than that of
>Teflon... NOW, is THAT clear enough, AND from an "independent" source to
>boot!
>
>>Well, we've got "real" lab technicians who don't have to resort to
>"entertaining infomercials" to make a point. They rely on the facts'.
>One of the facts that makes Tufoil stand out from the rest is the
>testing done by the United States Government at the National Bureau of
>Standards (now NIST). Their results proved that the surface friction of
>Tufoil is .029. That makes Tufoil, the most slippery substance know to
>man." (Just for the record, Teflon's surface friction measures .04.)
>
>
>>> There are not even any of Tufoil's test results
>>> >on their websites.
>
>If you will just read below, you will find both comments referring to
>their tests, AND the clear offer to SEND YOU their complete test
>results.. Did you bother to read ANY of the beginning material of this
>thread? *I* had NO trouble locating ANY of this stuff - and I don't even
>CARE about Tufoil or its claims...
>
>
>What better place to test cold starts but in Canada! The Canadian
>Government tested Tufoil at their cold regions lab in Kapuskasing and
>found an increase of nearly 1O% in cranking speed! An improvement your
>battery can live with. If your battery is weak or connections a bit
>corroded, your chances of starting will be greatly improved! Their tests
>also showed an improvement in fuel economy during cold weather
>operation.
>
>
>
>~WEAR~
>
>We have run thousands of abrasion tests in our lab over the last 25
>years. The latest, which we appropriately call our "Smoking/Non-smoking"
>test really shows how Tufoil stands out from the rest. One at a time, we
>placed each of the lubricants on the 4-ball apparatus (used by the
>National Bureau of Standards). Within 13 minutes or less each one had
>burned up engulfed in smoke! When we placed Tufoil under the same
>conditions, we had to put away the clock and run for a calendar! Tufoil
>ran for an astonishing 16 days before we even noticed a wisp of smoke!
>(We name names and tell it like it is. So call us and we'll be happy to
>send you the test FREE of charge!)
>
><THERE is where they clearly offer to provide detailed test info...>
>
>
>SOURCE: United States Government
>THEIR FINDINGS: Surface friction of .029
>WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU! Smoothest operation possible
>SOURCE: Canadian Government
>THEIR FINDINGS: 10% increase in cranking speed
>WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU! Easy starts, extended battery life
>SOURCE: 1996 Guinness Book of World Records
>THEIR FINDINGS: "The World's Most Efficient Lubricant"
>WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU: Best gas mileage & performance Engine life can be
>"doubled"
>What would be the point of using anything else?
>Call 1-800-922-0075 today and see for yourself what real "efficiency"
>means!
>Welcome to the winning team!
>
>
>
>
>>>
Light, Ed
TooTall wrote:
>
> I think the bottom line Gary is that Dupont the make of PTFE says the stuff
> don't work. What else do you need? You really want this crap to work very,
> very bad don't you. To the extent that you'll even ignore what the maker of
> this stuff says it won't do. If you've read everything I've posted you'll
> never use the stuff again. Whether you'll admit it or not I think you've
> learned something.
DuPont is bunk. The temperature goes down 10 degrees. The idle revs
up, unless a computer responds to it. It worked. How can you say it
didn't work? The oil without the additive did not really lubricate so
well, adding 10 degrees and slogging down the idle.
Explain how the above results show how the additive doesn't work,
and its ingredients don't work.
Light, Ed
TooTall wrote:
>
> I think the bottom line Gary is that Dupont the make of PTFE says the stuff
> don't work. What else do you need? You really want this crap to work very,
> very bad don't you. To the extent that you'll even ignore what the maker of
> this stuff says it won't do. If you've read everything I've posted you'll
> never use the stuff again. Whether you'll admit it or not I think you've
> learned something.
DuPont is bunk. The temperature goes down 10 degrees. The idle revs
Charles Mantey
>DuPont is bunk. The temperature goes down 10 degrees. The idle revs
>up, unless a computer responds to it. It worked. How can you say it
>didn't work? The oil without the additive did not really lubricate so
>well, adding 10 degrees and slogging down the idle.
>
strange. Even if the engine was running with less friction I would expect
the thermostat to keep the coolant at about the same temperature since the
thermostat is designed to open only when the coolant has reached a certain
temp.
I'm curious about Tufoil, might try it in my beater to see what happens
but anything with PTFE makes me a bit nervous.
Charlie
Dane
Gary - KJ6Q <ga...@cwnet.com> wrote in article
<6jqgnb$a...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>
> HOKEE DOKEE - here goes...
>
> <Stuff from Tufoil's page follows, with snippage... AND those wanting
> documentation of actual tests can simply call the 800 number at the
> bottom for detailed info, or merely go to www.tuffoil.com for their web
> pages>
>
>
> >Well, we've got "real" lab technicians who don't have to resort to
> "entertaining infomercials" to make a point. They rely on the facts'.
> One of the facts that makes Tufoil stand out from the rest is the
> testing done by the United States Government at the National Bureau of
> Standards (now NIST). Their results proved that the surface friction of
> Tufoil is .029. That makes Tufoil, the most slippery substance know to
> man." (Just for the record, Teflon's surface friction measures .04.)
>
> <THERE'S that National Bureau of Standards for you...>
Great, so now we've established that the NIST says that Tufoil is the
slipperiest substance known, but it doesn't tell us a thing about how it
performs in, or even if it really is suitable for use in an
engine....DuPont, the inventors and makers of Teflon says it's not...
>
> Recently, that same 4-ball apparatus (which best simulates the
> conditions inside the engine) compared Tufoil to most of the well-known
> lubricants. The results were astonishing...even to us! After just
> minutes (13 or less to be exact) each of the others had burned out.
> Tufoil ran an incredible 16 DAYS while the competitive lubricants broke
> down in just minutes! .
So what this tells us is that they used an engine simulator, and not a
real engine to test the stuff...there has been no real engines running the
stuff and then torn down to meaure real world wear, etc...
>
>
> ~DIESELS (AUTOMOTIVE) ~
>
> Recent tests by the well-known cold regions independent test lab at
> Kapuskasing in Canada show that Tufoil increases the cranking speed of
> cold diesels by 9.6%. That means a big improvement in starting when it's
> cold. Naturally, easier starting means that your battery life should be
> greatly extended, as well! Users report startling acceleration with
> diesels using Tufoil. Reports of improved diesel performance at high
> altitudes (mountains) are now coming in.
>
> <THERE'S that Canadian government reference...>
Ok, it makes diesels turn over 9.6% faster in cold weather...the rest is
editorial conjecture..
>
> ~OIL FILTERS~
>
> Most oil filters on modern cars pass particles that are smaller than 10
> microns (that's very small). The PTFE particles in Tufoil are in the
> range of .5 to .05 microns and pass through the filter as if it wasn't
> even there! Bulk filters that use the big wads of cellulose or edge on
> toilet paper rolls filter fine. There aren't too many around but one of
> the manufacturers of such a filter recommends the use of Tufoil.
And as I discovered, PTFE expands greatly when heated..the only question
is, does the particles in Tufoil expand beyond 10 microns when heated??? I
dunno...
>
>
> ~OLDER ENGINES~
>
> Modern engines all run on detergent oils and stay very clean internally.
> Tufoil can be used in them without any precaution. If you have an old
> classic that ran on oils before 1950, we recommend taking the engine
> apart and physically cleaning the sludge out of the crankcase and out of
> the valve covers. A high detergent oil can stir that material up and
> cause problems. We sell Tufoil to a major car rental company that deals
> primarily in older vehicles. Here are their own words. "We have been
> using the full 8 ounces of Tufoil in our rental vehicles at every oil
> change and the results have been outstanding. Since we are using older
> vehicles in our rental fleet, most are over 100,000 miles, we are
> showing little or no oil consumption while the product is being used."
A rental car company is hardly an independent "accepted scientific"
research lab....
>
>
> ~STARTING- SUMMER
>
> When an engine is driven at turnpike speeds during hot weather, shut
> down and restarted while still hot, some times problems develop. The
> parts have clamped together and must cool to loosen the engine. Tufoil
> helps prevent the clamping of hot parts and you will find hot starting
> much easier. New laboratory test data shows that engine oil runs 42%
> cooler with Tufoil.
Ok, and those independent labs would be?????
>
> <THERE'S a reference to lab test data, call for it if interested...>
>
> ~STARTING (WINTER)~
>
> What better place to test cold starts but in Canada! The Canadian
> Government tested Tufoil at their cold regions lab in Kapuskasing and
> found an increase of nearly 1O% in cranking speed! An improvement your
> battery can live with. If your battery is weak or connections a bit
> corroded, your chances of starting will be greatly improved! Their tests
> also showed an improvement in fuel economy during cold weather
> operation.
Well, 10% is hardly "greatly improved"...but improved none the less...
> ~WEAR~
>
> We have run thousands of abrasion tests in our lab over the last 25
> years. The latest, which we appropriately call our "Smoking/Non-smoking"
> test really shows how Tufoil stands out from the rest. One at a time, we
> placed each of the lubricants on the 4-ball apparatus (used by the
> National Bureau of Standards). Within 13 minutes or less each one had
> burned up engulfed in smoke! When we placed Tufoil under the same
> conditions, we had to put away the clock and run for a calendar! Tufoil
> ran for an astonishing 16 days before we even noticed a wisp of smoke!
> (We name names and tell it like it is. So call us and we'll be happy to
> send you the test FREE of charge!)
Oops, this isn't Tufoil making the claim is it???
>
> <THERE is where they clearly offer to provide detailed test info...>
But were the tests conducted by an independent, accepted lab??
>
> ~WHEEL BEARING GREASE~
>
> Wheel bearing and chassis greases benefit from the addition of Tufoil.
> Don't use too much or the stiffness of the grease will be lost. It will
> become too fluid. Mix about one part Tufoil to ten parts grease. Mix
> thoroughly so the final product is uniform. Remember! In disk brake
> cars, the disks get very hot due to braking, not friction from the
> bearings. If you use too much Tufoil, the grease's melting point can
> drop too low and cause it to run out of the bearing.
>
>
Ok, now, before you go chastizing me, I just want to point out that you
guys have been screaming back and forth about independent labs and real
world tests, real test data, etc....so far, I haven't seen either of you
REALLY provide those test data!!!
The only thing I can glean from above is that Tufoil helps the engine crank
over a bit faster in cold weather and that Tufoil has performed well in an
engine simulator, but still, no real data on use in real world engines and
long term effects...
I am not campaigning for or against the additives....in fact, I haven't
even ruled out trying them myself, but I just wanted to take the time to
point out that no one has proven their point on either side of the fence
yet! ........
Frank Ruff
Dane, I agree completely with you. You've taken a very objective
and very reasonable viewpoint. Just Show Me The Proof.
As a Mechanical Engineer (and former Automotive Test Engineer)
I am somewhat familiar with the process of publishing new
technological improvements. This is done in all fields, including
the Medical Field. I've seen nothing "published" on any of these
additives. Anyone in the engineering or other scientific fields
would just laugh when presented with the "pro Tufoil" evidence
I have seen thus far. It is all just sales hype.
But, I am not so quick to just dismiss these products as
"snake oil." At some point we are likely to all be using
some form of PTFE in our engines. But, it will take the
sufficient development work to achieve the proper formulation.
Then, it will take convincing data from a competent testing
facility to convince the scientific community and the S.A.E.
that it is a bonafide commercial product.
Thus far, I think that these various companies are more into
marketing than they are into "development". Appears to me that
the stuff has probably been perfected to the point of not
doing appreciable harm to the engines, but that benefits are
very limited and may or may not be duplicable in all cases.
Even here though I would only stick to the big name brands like Tufoil
or possibly Slick 50 because who knows what some of the small
companies are putting into their product. They could be hiring
cheap laborers in SE Asia to scrape Teflon off of used frying pans and
grind it up.
In any event, I don't think the price can be justified at the present time.
Dane <la...@spambuster.txdirect.net> wrote in article
<01bd8427$d095a160$cb47...@SpeedDemon.txdirect.net>...
TooTall
I'm simply posting info on this that Gary said was not available. You
interpret the info the way you want to. If you think you're getting
something wonderful out of it, go for it.
Light, Ed wrote in message <3562A4...@mk.net>...
>TooTall wrote:
>>
>> I think the bottom line Gary is that Dupont the make of PTFE says the
stuff
>> don't work. What else do you need? You really want this crap to work
very,
>> very bad don't you. To the extent that you'll even ignore what the maker
of
>> this stuff says it won't do. If you've read everything I've posted
you'll
>> never use the stuff again. Whether you'll admit it or not I think you've
>> learned something.
>
>DuPont is bunk. The temperature goes down 10 degrees. The idle revs
>up, unless a computer responds to it. It worked. How can you say it
>didn't work? The oil without the additive did not really lubricate so
>well, adding 10 degrees and slogging down the idle.
>
TooTall
If you want your idle to rise just fill the crankcase with diesel and you'll
really be happy. Don't expect the engine to last too long though.
Light, Ed wrote in message <3559DB...@mk.net>...
>Frank Ruff wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > It breaks in and your temp. gauge has fallen from 180 to 170. You've
had
>> > to turn the idle down because it started to scream and you were
>> > concerned
>> > for the drive train when you put it in drive.
>> >
>> > Did it work?
>> > --
>>
>> Obviously the thermostat has gone bad. You need a new one.
>
>Yeah, I guess without the heat stress of 10 degrees heat the idle
>was freed to rise.
TooTall
Gary,
As stated before, I'm simply posting info that you asked me for and I think
you have to admit, I provided exactly what I said I had read. I would not
use it as an oil additive. Just too much controversy for me to test this
stuff on an engine that will run 500K without it and cost 30K or so. That's
my opinion and my personal choice and I respect yours.
Gary - KJ6Q wrote in message <6k03g0$o...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>TooTall wrote in message <6ju1ec$t5i$1...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>...
>>I think the bottom line Gary is that Dupont the make of PTFE says the
>stuff
>>don't work. What else do you need? You really want this crap to work
>very,
>>very bad don't you. To the extent that you'll even ignore what the
>maker of
>>this stuff says it won't do. If you've read everything I've posted
>you'll
>>never use the stuff again. Whether you'll admit it or not I think
>you've
>>learned something.
>>
>
>THE actual "bottom line" is what I clearly stated further back up this
>thread - I couldn't care LESS what any of the net critics choose to do
>concerning the actual USE of ANY of these additives. I have NEVER used
>Tufoil - probably never will. I HAVE used a number of others, some
>provided the dramatic results I was looking for, some were outright
>failures, and the rest may or may not have been beneficial over the long
>haul. DuPont may have originally *developed* PTFE, but THAT fact alone
>hardly qualifies them as "experts" on all possible uses of that
>material. Its pretty much like the guy who "invented" the wheel stating
>it was good for wheelbarrows, but could NEVER be useful as a mass mover
>of people... I mean, if HE invented the wheel, he should CERTAINLY know
>ALL its potential uses, shouldn't he?
>
>There are MANY ways to waste your money - and Tufoil may VERY well be
>one of them - but to blindly call ALL such products "snakeoil", and
>equally blindly accuse satisfied users who state THEIR success with
>various products as ignorant fools, is ITSELF ignorant and foolish.
>
>Our modern society reached its current level of technology thru a widely
>varying and broad source of invention and innovation - ALL successful
>advancement is NOT limited to large corporations and major oil
>companies. And the same folks who turn their backs on potentially
>improved products and technology, are probably the SAME sort who
>resisted the switch from horses to automobiles, sails to steamship
>power, and from candles to electric lights.
>
>Open your eyes and your mind - there may well be an entire WORLD of
>information and advancement waiting for you...
>
>Gary - KJ6Q
>