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.....