SLICK 50- The Truth

[Self Inflicted]

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)

[Jim Mckenna]

Interesting to note also that Du Pont, manufacturers of Teflon (PTFE)
specifically state that their product is not recommended for use in
combustion engines.

Jim