Slick 50/Dura Lube any good?

[Wingman]

I've seen the commercials; I've seen Jeff Gordon and Auri Luyendyke
advertising these products but are they worth it? The manual for my Eagle
Talon says that additives aren't necessary but is the added protection worth
the money? Would the products give any added protection for the long trip I'm
about to take?

Thanks...

--
Proud owner of a USR X2 v.everything modem.
--
*****The WINGMAN*****

[none...@execpc.com]

OK Wingman, here's how it works for Jeff and Auri, the companies that sell
the elixer pay millions of dollars per year to finance the operations of
their race teams. In exchange for these millions, the *face* agrees to
participate in product endorsement. Did you ever see the Burt Reynolds
movie where he played a Winston cup driver and the owner of a fast food
restraunt chain buys his team and makes him dress up in a chicken
costume?? The remarkable thing about the movie was the degree of truth
portrayed. Both are talented drivers to be sure, but telling us to pour
plastic granuals and chlorine in our crankcase only proves that what this
country *really* needs is a program for socialized auto racing.

--
Neil Nelson
If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he'll probably call in sick a lot in the summer.
Member of i-ATN....international Automotive Technicians Network
summer toys; 70 AAR 'Cuda #s match original not restored
64 Valiant 340 4bbl
winter toys; 95 Dakota SLT 4X4
88 Toyota Camry AWD

[John M. Borchers]

Wingman,

To keep it simple, TEFLON or PolyTetraFlouraEthane(PTFE) is a solid. Oil
filters take out solids. Teflon gets absorbed mostly by the oil filter.
Teflon is a very slick substance yes. But, I laugh everytime someone forgets
that Teflon is a sealant as well (Teflon tape and Teflon silicones). It
likes to bond and seal in areas like the oil pump. I've personally known 2
people that had oil pumps seize due to these products. However, they were
older vehicles with some built up in the pickup tupe and oil ports.

The racer (Jeff Gordon #24?) that endorses and uses it in his vehicle
should. I would if I raced and tore my engine down and rebuilt it after I
put it in the oil. It does work and it is slick, but it is also a sealant.

John

Wingman wrote in message <6d1nqm$1o...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>...

[Lone Wolf]

Wingman wrote in message <6d1nqm$1o...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>...
>I've seen the commercials; I've seen Jeff Gordon and Auri Luyendyke
>advertising these products but are they worth it? The manual for my Eagle
>Talon says that additives aren't necessary but is the added protection
worth
>the money? Would the products give any added protection for the long trip
I'm
>about to take?
>

Believe the manual. If that stuff actually coats engine parts with
plastic as they
claim, it will not discriminate between wearing surfaces and small oil
passages.
If it doesn't stick well enough to clog the oil passages, it won'y stick
well enough
to make any worthwhile difference. In general, oil additives are automotive
cholesterol.

[William George Logan III]

Consumer Reports did a study of these products recently. Your local library
should have a copy of the issue.

--
Bill Logan
Ventura, CA

Wingman wrote in message <6d1nqm$1o...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>...
>I've seen the commercials; I've seen Jeff Gordon and Auri Luyendyke

deleted...

[Wrenchski]

A good article can be found at HRE.com-page 2
Wrenchski
If A Little Is Good, Then More Is Better, And Too Much Is Enough!!!!

[Doug & Judy Stracener]

FYI The Group: Here is real data on the Slick50 and other PTFE stuff;
The basic bottom line is it does not work as advertised... use a good
grade of synthetic oil if you want something that really works, like
Amsoil, Mobil One, Shell Delvac, etc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Snake Oil!

Is That Additive Really A Negative?

Article and Photos by Fred Rau

Information for this article was compiled from reports andstudies by
the University of Nevada Desert Research Center, DuPontChemical
Company, Avco
Lycoming (aircraft engine manufacturers),North Dakota State
University, Briggs and Stratton (enginemanufacturers), the University
of Utah Engineering
ExperimentStation, California State Polytechnic College and the
NationalAeronautics and Space Administration's Lewis Research Center.

Road Rider does not claim to have all the answers. Nor do wecare to
presume to tell you what to do. We have simply tried toprovide you
with all the
information we were able to dredge up onthis subject, in hopes it will
help you in making your own, informeddecision.

You Can't Tell The Players Without A Program

On starting this project, we set out to find as many differentoil
additives as we could buy. That turned out to be a mistake. Therewere
simply too many available!
At the very first auto parts storewe visited, there were over two
dozen different brand namesavailable. By the end of the day, we had
identified over 40
differentoil additives for sale and realized we needed to rethink our
strategy.

First of all, we found that if we checked the fine print on
thepackages, quite a number of the additives came from the
samemanufacturer. Also, we began to
notice that the additives could beseparated into basic "groups" that
seemed to carry approximately thesame ingredients and the same
promises.

In the end, we divided our additives into four basic groups
andpurchased at least three brands from three different
manufacturersfor each group. We defined our
four groups this way:

1.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular50-rated
engine oil (including standard additives) with PTFE (TeflonTM) added.

2.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular50-rated
engine oil (including standard additives) with
zincdialkyldithiophosphate added.

3.) Products containing (as near as we could determine) muchthe same
additives as are already found in most major brands ofengine 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 manufacturersrefuse to
list the specific
ingredients of their products. We willdiscuss each group individually.

The PTFE Mystery

Currently, the most common and popular oil additives on the marketare
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 tradename "Teflon,"
which is a registeredtrademark of the DuPont Chemical Corporation.
Among those oiladditives we have identified as containing PTFE are:
Slick 50, LiquidRing,
Lubrilon, Microlon, Matrix, Petrolon (same company as Slick50), QMl,
and T-Plus (K-Mart). There are probably many more names inuse on many
more
products using PTFE. We have found that oil additivemakers like to
market their products under a multitude of "privatebrand" names.

While some of these products may contain other additives inaddition to
PTFE, all seem to rely on the PTFE as their primaryactive ingredient
and all, without
exception, do not list what otheringredients they may contain.

Though they have gained rather wide acceptance among themotoring
public, oil additives containing PTFE have also garneredtheir share of
critics among experts
in the field of lubrication. Byfar the most damning testimonial
against these products originallycame from the DuPont Chemical
Corporation, inventor of PTFE
andholder of the patents and trademarks for Teflon. In a
statementissued about ten years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers
DivisionProduct Specialist, J.F.
Imbalzano said, "Teflon is not useful as aningredient in oil additives
or oils used for internal combustionengines."

At the time, DuPont threatened legal action against anyone whoused the
name "Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in aninternal
combustion engine, and
refused to sell its PTFE powders toany one who intended to use them
for such purposes.

After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claimingDuPont
could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont wasforced to
once again begin
selling their PTFE to the additiveproducers. The additive makers like
to claim this is some kind of"proof' that their products work, when in
fact it is nothing
morethan proof that the American legal ethic of "innocent until
provenguilty" is still alive and well. The decision against Dupont
involvedwhat is called "restraint of
trade." You can't refuse to sell aproduct to someone just because
there is a possibility they might useit for a purpose other than what
you intended it for.

It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use ofPTFE
in engine oils remains carefully aloof and non-commital, forobvious
legal reasons. DuPont
states that though they sell PTFE tooil additive producers, they have
"no proof of the validity of theadditive makers' claims." They further
state that they have
"noknowledge of any advantage gained through the use of PTFE in
engineoil."

Fear of potential lawsuits for possible misrepresentation of aproduct
seem to run much higher among those with the most to lose.

After DuPont's decision and attempt to halt the use of PTFE inengine
oils, several of the oil additive companies simply wentelsewhere for
their PTFE powders,
such as purchasing them in othercountries. In some cases, they
disguise or hype their PTFE as beingsomething different or special by
listing it under one of their
owntradenames. That doesn't change the fact that it is still PTFE.

In addition, there is some evidence that certain supplies ofPTFE
powders (from manufacturers other than DuPont) are of a cruderversion
than the original, made
with larger sized flakes that aremore likely to "settle out" in your
oil or clog up your filters. Onefairly good indication that a product
contains this kind of PTFE isif
the instructions for its use advise you to "shake well beforeusing."
It only stands to reason that if the manufacturer knows thesolids in
his product will settle to the
bottom of a container whilesitting on a shelf, the same thing is going
to happen inside yourengine when it is left idle for any period of
time.

The problem with putting PTFE in your oil, as explained to us
byseveral industry experts, is that PTFE is a solid. The
additivemakers claim this solid "coats" the
moving parts in an engine (thoughthat is far from being scientifically
proven). Slick 50 is currentlyboth the most aggressive advertiser and
the most popular seller,
withclaims of over 14 million treatments sold. However, such solids
seemeven more inclined to coat non-moving parts, like oil passages
andfilters. After all, if it
can build up under the pressures andfriction exerted on a cylinder
wall, then it stands to reason itshould build up even better in places
with low pressures
andvirtually no friction.

This conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil
additivescontaining PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center,
whichsaid in their report, "In
the types of bearing surface contact wehave looked at, we have seen no
benefit. In some cases we have seendetrimental effect. The solids in
the oil tend to
accumulate atinlets 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 thinkabout
why you have an oil filter on your engine. To remove suspendedsolids,
right? Right.
Therefore it would seem to follow that if youroil filter is doing its
job, it will collect as much of the PTFE aspossible, as quickly as
possible. This can result in a
clogged oilfilter and decreased oil pressure throughout your engine.

In response to our inquiries about this sort of problem, severalof the
PTFE pushers responded that their particulates were of asub-micron
size, capable of
passing through an ordinary oil filterunrestricted. This certainly
sounds good, and may in some casesactually be true, but it makes
little difference when you know
therest of the story. You see, PTFE has other qualities besides being
afriction reducer: It expands radically when exposed to heat. So
evenif those particles are
small enough to pass through your filter whenyou purchase them, they
very well may not be when your engine reachesnormal operating
temperature.

Here again, the' scientific evidence seems to support this, asin tests
conducted by researchers at the University of UtahEngineering
Experiment Station involving
Petrolon additive with PTFE.

The Petrolon test report states, "There was a pressure dropacross the
oil filter resulting from possible clogging of smallpassageways." In
addition, oil analysis
showed that ironcontamination doubled after using the treatment,
indicating thatengine wear didn't go down - it appeared to shoot up.

This particular report was paid for by Petrolon (marketers ofSlick
50), and was not all bad news for their products. The tests,conducted
on a Chevrolet
six-cylinder automobile engine, showed thatafter treatment with the
PTFE additive the test engine's friction wasreduced by 13.1 per- cent.
Also, output
horsepower increased from 5.3percent to 8.1 percent, and fuel economy
improved from 11.8 percentunder light load to 3.8 percent under heavy
load.

These are the kind of results an aggressive marketing companylike
Petrolon can really sink their teeth into. If we only reportedthe
results in the last paragraph to
you, you'd be inclined to thinkSlick 50 was indeed a magic engine
elixir. What you have to keep inmind is that often times the benefits
(like increased horse
power andfuel economy) may be out weighed by some serious drawbacks
(like theindications of reduced oil pressure and increased wear rate).

The Plot Thickens

Just as we were about to go to press with this article, we
werecontacted by the public relations firm of Trent and Company,
anoutfit with a prestigious address in
the Empire State Building, NewYork. They advised us they were working
for a company called QMI outof Lakeland, Florida, that was marketing a
"technologicalbreakthrough" product in oil additives. Naturally, we
asked them tosend us all pertinent information, including any testing
andresearch data.

What we got was pretty much what we expected. QMI's oiladditive,
according to their press release, uses "ten times more PTFEresins than
its closest
competitor." Using the "unique SX-6000formula," they say they are the
only company to use "aqueousdispersion resin which means the microns
(particle sizes)
areextensively smaller and can penetrate tight areas." This, they
claim,"completely eliminates the problem of clogged filters and
oilpassages."

Intrigued by their press release, we set up a telephoneinterview with
their Vice- President of Technical Services, Mr. OwenHeatwole. Mr.
Heatwole's name was
immediately recognized by us as onethat had popped in earlier research
of this subject as a formeremployee of Petrolon, a company whose name
seems
inextricably linkedin some fashion or another with virtually every
PTFE-related additivemaker in the country.

Mr. Heatwole was a charming and persuasive talker with a knackfor
avoiding direct answers as good as any seasoned politician. Hisglib
pitch for his product
was the best we've ever heard, but whendissected and pared down to the
verifiable facts, it actually saidvery little.

When we asked about the ingredients in QMI's treatments, we gotalmost
exactly the response we expected. Mr. Heatwole said he would"have to
avoid
discussing specifics about the formula, forproprietary reasons."

After telling us that QMI was being used by "a major oilcompany," 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
dataavailable from a "major laboratory," proving conclusively
howeffective QMI was. When we asked
for the name of the lab, can youguess? Yup, "We can't give out that
information, for proprietaryreasons."

What QMI did give us was the typical "testimonials," though wemust
admit theirs came from more recognizable sources than usual.They seem
to have won over
the likes of both Team Kawasaki and BobbyUnser, who evidently endorse
and use QMI in their racing engines. Mr.Heatwole was very proud of the
fact that
their product was beingused in engines that he himself admitted are
"torn down andcompletely inspected on a weekly basis." Of course, what
he left outis that
those same engines are almost totally rebuilt every timethey're torn
down. So what does that prove in terms of his productreducing 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 soldunder many
different private
labels, but refused to identify thoselabels "for proprietary reasons."
When asked about the actual size ofthe PTFE particles used in QMI, he
claimed they were
measured as"sub-micron in size" by a "major motor laboratory" which he
couldn'tidentify - 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 radicalgrowth in technology has overcome the problem
areas associated
withPTFE in the I980s'"

"Not bad," we said. Then we asked to whom we might attributethis gem
of wisdom. DuPont Chemical, perhaps?

"Me," said Mr. Heatwole. "I said that."

QMI's press releases like to quote the Guinness Book Of Recordsin
saying that PTFE is "The slickest substance known to man." Far beit
from us to take
exception to the Guinness Book, but we doubt thatPTFE is much slicker
than some of the people marketing it.

The Zinc Question

The latest "miracle ingredient" in oil additives, attempting tousurp
PTFE's cure-all throne, is zinc dialkyldithiophosphate, whichwe will
refer to here after as simply
"zinc."

Purveyors of the new zinc-related products claim they can
proveabsolute superiority over the PTFE-related products. Naturally,
thePTFE crowd claim exactly
the same, in reverse.

Zinc is contained as part of the standard additive package invirtually
every major brand of engine oil sold today, varying from alow volume
of 0.10 per cent in
brands such as Valvoline All Climateand Chevron l5W-50, to a high
volume of 0.20 percent in brands suchas Valvoline Race and Pennzoil GT
Performance.

Organic zinc compounds are used as extreme pressure,
anti-wearadditives, and are therefore found in larger amounts in
oilsspecifically blended for high-revving,
turbocharged or racingapplications. The zinc in your oil comes into
play only when there isactual metal-to-metal con tact within your
engine, which should
neveroccur under normal operating conditions. However, if you race
yourbike, or occasionally play tag with the redline on the tach, the
zincis your last line of
defense. Under extreme conditions, the zinccompounds react with the
metal to prevent scuffing, particularlybetween cylinder bores and
piston rings.

However - and this is the important part to remember -
availableresearch shows that more zinc does not give you more
protection, itmerely prolongs the
protection if the rate of metal-to-metal contactis abnormally high or
extended. So unless you plan on spending acouple of hours dragging
your knee at Laguna
Seca, adding extra zinccompounds to your oil is usually a waste. Also,
keep in mind thathigh zinc content can lead to deposit formation on
your valves, andspark
plug fouling.

Among the products we found containing zincdialkyldithiophosphate were
Mechanics Brand Engine Tune Up, K MartSuper Oil Treatment, and STP
Engine
Treatment With XEP2. The onlyreason we can easily identify the
additives with the new zinccompounds is that they are required to
carry a Federally
mandatedwarning label indicating they contain a hazardous substance.
The zincphosphate they contain is a known eye irritant, capable of
inflictingsevere harm if it
comes in contact with your eyes. If you insist onusing one of these
products, please wear protective goggles andexercise extreme caution.

As we mentioned, organic zinc compounds are already found invirtually
every major brand of oil, both automotive and motorcycle.However, in
recent years the
oil companies voluntarily reduced theamount of zinc content in most of
their products after researchindicated the zinc was responsible for
premature deterioration
anddamage to catalytic converters. Obviously this situation would
notaffect 99 percent of all the motorcycles on the road - however,
itcould have been a factor
with the newer BMW converter - equippedbikes.

Since the reduction in zinc content was implemented solely forthe
protection of catalytic converters, it is possible that
somemotorcycles might benefit from a slight
increase in zinc content intheir oils. This has been taken into
account by at least one oilcompany, Spectro, which offers 0.02 to 0.03
percent more
zinccompounds in its motorcycle oils than in its automotive oils.

Since Spectro (Golden 4 brand, in this case) is a syntheticblend
lubricant designed for extended drain intervals, this increaseseems to
be wholly justified. Also,
available research indicates thatSpectro has, in this case, achieved a
sensible balance for extendedapplication without increasing the zinc
content to the point that
itis likely to cause spark plug fouling or present a threat
toconverter- 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 yourengine,
and even some things that could be beneficial, most expertsstill
recommend that you
avoid their use. The reason for this is thatyour oil, as purchased
from one of the major oil companies, alreadycontains a very extensive
additive package.

This package is made up of numerous, specific additivecomponents,
blended to achieve a specific formula that will meet therequirements
of your engine. Usually,
at least several of theseadditives will be synergistic. That is, they
react mutually, ingroups of two or more, to create an effect that none
of them couldattain
individually. Changing or adding to this formula can upset thebalance
and negate the protective effect the formula was meant toachieve, even
if you are only
adding more of something that wasalready included in the initial
package.

If it helps, try to think of your oil like a cake recipe. Justbecause
the original recipe calls for two eggs (which makes for avery moist
and tasty cake), do you think
adding four more eggs isgoing to make the cake better? Of course not.
You're going to upsetthe carefully calculated balance of ingredients
and magnify theeffect
the eggs have on the recipe to the point that it ruins theentire cake.
Adding more of a specific additive already contained inyour oil is
likely to produce similar
results.

This information should also be taken into account when addingto the
oil already in your bike or when mixing oils for any reason,such as
synthetic with
petroleum. In these cases, always make surethe 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 orcounteract each other.

Detergents And Solvents

Many of the older, better-known oil treatments on the market donot
make claims nearly so lavish as the new upstarts. Old standbyslike
Bardahl, Rislone and
Marvel Mystery Oil, instead offer thingslike "quieter lifters,"
"reduced oil burning" and a "cleanerengine."

Most of these products are made up of solvents and detergentsdesigned
to dissolve sludge and carbon deposits inside your engine sothey can
be flushed or
burned out. Wynn's Friction Proofing Oil, forexample, is 83 percent
kerosene. Other brands use naphthalene,xylene, acetone and
isopropanol. Usually, these
ingredients will befound in a base of standard mineral oil.

In general, these products are designed to do just the oppositeof what
the PTFE and zinc phosphate additives claim to do. Instead ofleaving
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 andclean up
your engine, particularly if it is an older, abused one. Theproblem
is, unless you have some
way of determining just how much isneeded to remove your deposits
without going any further, suchsolvents also can strip away the
boundary lubrication layer
providedby your oil. Overuse of solvents is an easy trap to fall into,
andone which can promote harmful metal-to-metal contact within
yourengine.

As a general rule of thumb these products had their place andwere at
least moderately useful on older automobile and motorcycleengines of
the Fifties and
Sixties, but are basically unneeded on themore efficient engine
designs of the past two decades.

The Infamous "No Oil" Demo

At at least three major motorcycle rallies this past year, wehave
witnessed live demonstrations put on to demonstrate theeffectiveness
of certain oil additives. The
demonstrators wouldhave a bench- mounted engine which they would fill
with oil and aprescribed dose of their "miracle additive." After
running the enginefor a
while they would stop it, drain out the oil and start it upagain.
Instant magic! The engine would run perfectly well for hourson end,
seemingly proving the
effectiveness of the additive which hadsupposedly "coated" the inside
of the engine so well it didn't evenneed the oil to run. In one case,
we saw this done with an
actualmotorcycle, which would be rid den around the parking lot
afterhaving its oil drained. A pretty convincing demonstration - until
youknow the facts.

Since some of these demonstrations were conducted using Briggsand
Stratton engines, the Briggs and Stratton Company itselfdecided to run
a similar, but
somewhat more scientific, experiment.Taking two brand-new, identical
engines straight off their assemblyline, they set them up for
bench-testing. The only
difference wasthat one had the special additive included with its oil
and the otherdid not. Both were operated for 20 hours before being
shut down andhaving the
oil drained from them. Then both were started up again andallowed to
run for another 20 straight hours. Neither engine seemedto have any
problem performing
this "minor miracle."

After the second 20-hour run, both engines were completely torndown
and inspected by the company's engineers. What they found wasthat both
engines
suffered from scored crankpin bearings, but theengine treated with the
additive also suffered from heavy cylinderbore damage that was not
evident on the
untreated engine.

This points out once again the inherent problem with particulateoil
additives: They can cause oil starvation. This is particularlytrue in
the area of piston rings,
where there is a critical need foradequate oil flow. In practically
all of the reports and studies onoil additives, and particularly those
involving suspended solids
likePTFE, this has been reported as a major area of engine damage.

The Racing Perspective

Among the most convincing testimonials in favor of oil additivesare
those that come from professional racers or racing teams. Asnoted
previously, some of the oil
additive products actually arecapable of producing less engine
friction, better gas mileage andhigher horsepower out put. In the
world of professional racing,
thesplit-second advantage that might be gained from using such a
productcould be the difference between victory and defeat.

Virtually all of the downside or detrimental effects attached tothese
products are related to extended, long-term usage. Forshort-life,
high-revving, ultra-high
performance engines designed tolast no longer than one racing season
(or in some cases, one singlerace), the long-term effects of oil
additives need not even
beconsidered.

Racers also use special high-adhesion tires that give muchbetter
traction and control than our normal street tires, but youcertainly
wouldn't want to go touring on
them, since they're designedto wear out in several hundred (or less)
miles. Just because certainoil additives may be beneficial in a
competitive context is no
reasonto 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 someof
those we have described here. However, the best that can be saidof
those that have not proved
to be harmful is that they haven't beenproved to offer any real
benefits, either. In some cases, introducingan additive with a
compatible package of components
to your oil inthe right proportion and at the right time can
conceivably extend thelife of your oil. However, in every case we have
studied it provesout that it
would actually have been cheaper to simply change theengine oil
instead.

In addition, recent new evidence has come to light that makesusing
almost any additive a game of Russian Roulette. Since theadditive
distributors do not list the
ingredients contained withintheir products, you never know for sure
just what you are putting inyour engine.

Recent tests have shown that even some of the most
inoffensiveadditives contain products which, though harmless in their
initialstate, convert to hydrofluoric acid
when exposed to the temperaturesinside a firing cylinder. This acid is
formed as part of the exhaustgases, and though it is instantly
expelled from your engine and
seemsto do it no harm, the gases collect inside your exhaust system
andeat away at your mufflers from the inside out.

Whatever The Market Will Bear

The pricing of oil additives seems to follow no particularpattern
whatsoever. Even among those products that seem to be almostidentical,
chemically, retail prices
covered an extremely wide range.For example:

One 32-ounce bottle of Slick 50 (with PTFE) cost us $29.95 at
adiscount house that listed the retail price as $59.95, while
a32-ounce bottle of T-Plus (which
claims to carry twice as much PTFEas the Slick 50) cost us only
$15.88.

A 32-ounce bottle of STP Engine Treatment (containing what theycall
XEP2), which they claim they can prove "outperforms leading PTFEengine
treatments,"
cost us $17.97. Yet a can of K Mart Super OilTreatment, which listed
the same zinc-derivative ingredient as thatlisted for the XEP2, cost
us a paltry $2.67.

Industry experts estimate that the actual cost of producing mostoil
additives is from one-tenth to one-twentieth of the askingretail
price. Certainly no additive
manufacturer has come forwardwith any exotic, high-cost ingredient or
list of ingredients todispute this claim. As an interesting note along
with this, backbefore
there was so much competition in the field to drive pricesdown,
Petrolon (Slick 50) was selling their PTFE products for as muchas $400
per treatment! The
words "buyer beware" seem to take on veryreal significance when
talking about oil additives.

The Psychological Placebo

You have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating
againstoil additives, why so many of us still buy them. That's
themillion-dollar question, and it's
just as difficult to answer as whyso many of us smoke cigarettes,
drink hard liquor or engage in anyother number of questionable
activities. We know they aren't
good forus - 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
ofus hunger for that peace of mind
that comes with believing we havepurchased the absolute best or most
protection we can possibly get.

Even better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comeswith
thinking we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessingknowledge of
something just a bit
better than everyone else.

Then again, perhaps it comes from an ancient, deep-seated needwe all
seem to have to believe in magic. There has never been anyshortage of
unscrupulous
types ready to cash in on our willingness tobelieve that there's some
magical mystery potion we can buy to helpus lose weight, grow hair,
attract the opposite sex
or make ourengines run longer and better. I doubt that there's a one
of us whohasn't fallen for one of these at least once in our
lifetimes. Wejust 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
typicalprint advertisement will be one or
more letters from a satisfiedcustomer stating something like, "1 have
used Brand X in my enginefor 2 years and 50,000 miles and it runs
smoother and gets
bettergas mileage than ever before. I love this product and would
recommendit to anyone."

Such evidence is referred to as "anecdotal" and is most commonlyused
to pro mote such things as miracle weight loss diets andastrology.

Whenever I see one of these ads I am reminded of a stunt playedout
several years ago by Allen Funt of "Candid Camera" that
clearlydemonstrated the side of
human nature that makes such advertisingpossible.

With cameras in full view, fake "product demonstrators" wouldoffer
people passing through a grocery store the opportunity totaste-test a
"new soft drink." What
the victims didn't know was thatthey were being given a horrendous
concoction of castor oil, garlicjuice, 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 bydesperately trying
to conceal their anguish and disgust. Someliterally turned away from
the cameras and spit the offending potionon the floor.

The fascinating part came when about one out of four of thevictims
would actu ally turn back to the cameras and proclaim the newdrink was
"Great" or "Unique"
or, in several cases, "One of the bestthings I've ever tasted!" Go
figure.

The point is, compiling "personal testimonials" for a product isone of
the easiest things an advertising company can do - and one ofthe
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'sjust an opinion, and needs no basis
in fact whatsoever.

On the other hand, there has been documented, carefulscientific
analysis done on numerous oil additives by accreditedinstitutions 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 mostdurable
engines in the world, says in their report on engine oiladditives,
"They do not appear to offer
any benefits."

North Dakota State University conducted tests on oiladditives and said
in their report, "The theory sounds good- the onlyproblem is that the
products simply
don't work."

And finally, Ed Hackett, chemist at the University of NevadaDesert
Research Center, says, "Oil additives should not be used. Theoil
companies have gone to
great lengths to develop an additive package that meets the vehicle's
requirements. If you add anything tothis oil you may upset the balance
and prevent the oil
fromperforming to specification."

Petrolon, Inc., of Houston, Texas, makers of Petrolon andproducers of
at least a dozen other lubrication products containingPTFE, including
Slick 50 and Slick
30 Motorcycle Formula, claim that,"Multiple tests by independent
laboratories have shown that whenproperly applied to an automotive
engine, Slick 50 Engine
Formulareduces wear on engine parts. Test results have shown that
Slick 50treated engines sustained 50 percent less wear than test
engines runwith premium
motor oil alone."

Sounds pretty convincing, doesn't it?

The problem is, Petrolon and the other oil additive companiesthat
claim "scientific evidence" from "independent laboratories,"all refuse
to identify the laboratories
that conducted the tests orthe criteria under which the tests were
conducted. They claim theyare "contractually bound" by the
laboratories to not reveal
theiridentities.

In addition, the claim of "50 percent less wear" has neverbeen proven
on anything approaching a long-term basis. Typicalexamples used to
support the additive
makers' claims involve enginesrun from 100 to 200 hours after
treatment, during which time theamount of wear particles in the oil
decreased. While this has
provento be true in some cases, it has also been proven that after 400
to500 hours of running the test engines invariably reverted
toproducing just as many wear
particles as before treatment, and insome 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
thisarticle are clearly identified. They have no problem with
makingtheir findings public. You will also note
that virtually all of theirfindings about oil additives are negative.
That's not because wewanted to give a biased report against oil
additives - it's becausewe
couldn't find a single laboratory, engine manufacturer orindependent
research facility who would make a public claim, withtheir name
attached to it, that any of
the additives were actuallybeneficial to an engine. The conclusion
seems inescapable.

As a final note on advertising hype versus the real world, wesaw a
television ad the other night for Slick 50 oil additive. The
adencouraged people to buy their
product on the basis of the fact that,"Over 14 million Americans have
tried Slick 50!" Great. We're sureyou could just as easily say, "Over
14 million Americans
have smokedcigarettes!"-but is that really any reason for you to try
it? Ofcourse not, because you've seen the scientific evidence of the
harmit can do. The exact
same principle applies here.

In Conclusion

The major oil companies are some of the richest, most powerfuland
aggressive corporations in world. They own multi- million
dollarresearch facilities manned by
some of the best chemical engineersmoney can hire. It is probably safe
to say that any one of them hasthe capabilities and resources at hand
in marketing,
distribution,advertising, research and product development equal to 20
times thatof any of the independent additive companies. It therefore
stands toreason that
if any of these additive products were actu ally capableof improving
the capabilities of engine lubricants, the major oilcompanies would
have been able to
determine that and to find some wayto cash in on it.

Yet of all the oil additives we found, none carried the name
orendorsement of any of the major oil producers.

In addition, all of the major vehicle and engine manufacturersspend
millions of dollars each year trying to increase the longevityof their
products, and millions
more paying off warranty claims whentheir products fail. Again, it
only stands to reason that if theythought any of these additives would
increase the life or
improve theperformance of their engines, they would be actively using
andselling them - or at least endorsing their use.

Instead, many of them advise against the use of these additivesand, in
some cases, threaten to void their warranty coverage if suchthings are
found to be used in
their products.

In any story of this nature, absolute "facts" are virtuallyimpossible
to come by. Opinions abound. Evidence that points onedirection or the
other is avail able, but
has to be carefullyferreted out, and is not always totally reliable or
completelyverifiable.

In this environment, conclusions reached by known,knowledgeable
experts in the field must be given a certain amount ofweight.
Conclusions reached by
unknown, unidentifiable sources mustbe discounted almost totally. That
which is left must be weighed, oneside against the other, in an
attempt to reach a
"reasonable"conclusion.

In the case of oil additives, there is a considerable volume
ofevidence against their effectiveness. This evidence comes
fromwell-known and identifiable expert
sources, including independentresearch laboratories, state
universities, major enginemanufacturers, and even NASA.

Against this rather formidable barrage of scientific research,additive
makers offer not much more than their own claims ofeffectiveness, plus
questionable and
totally unscientific personaltestimonials. Though the purveyors of
these products state they havestudies 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
owntesting departments, which
must, by their very nature, be taken witha rather large grain of salt.

[D J Mann]

In article <34F82FEE...@ix.netcom.com>, Doug & Judy Stracener <ka5...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>FYI The Group: Here is real data on the Slick50 and other PTFE stuff;
>The basic bottom line is it does not work as advertised... use a good
>grade of synthetic oil if you want something that really works, like
>Amsoil, Mobil One, Shell Delvac, etc.

SHELL Delvac? I thought Delvac was a name for Mobil products? At least it
was about 25 or so years ago; it was their line of diesel engine oils.

David Mann

--------------------------
please reply to jacobus (shift-2) pacbell point net
--------------------------

[rha...@ssti.com]

(Wingman) wrote:
>
<snip>
> The manual for my Eagle Talon says that additives aren't necessary <snip>
> *****The WINGMAN*****
>
I'll leave out comments on additives (I wouldn't use them). If you're looking
for ways to boost the performance of your Talon, may I suggest that you check
out the Club DSM website at <www.DSM.org>? Diamond Star Motors was the co-op
venture between Mitsubishi and Chrysler that built the Eclipse, Talon, and
Laser in Normal, IL. It is now part of Mitsubishi Motors, I believe.

There are directions on the website for subscribing to the moderated
discussion list of all things DSM-related.

Happy motoring!

Robert Hayton
Independent Dealer for you-know-who
San Jose, CA
<X77...@ix.netcom.com>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Lisa Peeples]

Put this stuff in your car, and kiss the engine good-bye..............

If using good grade brand name oil and changing the oil every 3,000
miles or 3 months for the entire life of the car, most engines will last
up to 200,000 miles with no burning of oil. By the time you hit 200,000
miles you may leak a crap load of oil on the ground, and have other
problems, but burning oil will NOT be one of them. Why would you use
this crap if good oil and changing it very often results in no
damage.....

Thanks...

[Scottibod]

Snake Oil, any engine can run without oil for as long as they do in the
commercials. You don't see them comparing the test to an untreated engine.

Scott Tucker
autodia...@juno.com

[Regnirps]

"John M. Borchers" <borc...@cyberenet.net> wrote:

>To keep it simple, TEFLON or PolyTetraFlouraEthane(PTFE) is a solid. Oil
>filters take out solids. Teflon gets absorbed mostly by the oil filter.
>Teflon is a very slick substance yes. But, I laugh everytime someone forgets
>that Teflon is a sealant as well (Teflon tape and Teflon silicones). It
>likes to bond and seal in areas like the oil pump. I've personally known 2
>people that had oil pumps seize due to these products. However, they were
>older vehicles with some built up in the pickup tupe and oil ports.
>
>The racer (Jeff Gordon #24?) that endorses and uses it in his vehicle
>should. I would if I raced and tore my engine down and rebuilt it after I
>put it in the oil. It does work and it is slick, but it is also a sealant.
>
>John

I don't think they are allowed to use it in a stock car, just endorse it!

Charlie Springer

[Joe White]

In my 91 Maxima - using Slick 50 & Mobil 1 - on a couple of occasions when I
have taken the Slick 50 out after a Oil change - mileage drops 10% and cold
starting is slower. Add it back and both improve. While others ask for
scientific proof, or claim I could have gotten 200K miles without, I feel
that it was like chicken soup - I did not hurt anything.....................

Lisa Peeples wrote in message <34FB06...@aol.com>...

[iCOM Subscriber]

I have an `86 Accord now with 190,000 miles on it and it still cruises
at 110mph+(Montana) last year.I change the oil and filter religiously
every 2000 miles(4000klmos.)myself.I use 10w30 in the spring and
fall,5w30 in January and February, and 15w40 in the summer.It uses less
than 1/2 litre of oil in 2000 miles (hard driving)I use diesel rated oil
whenever possible.If looked after the engine will outlast the rest of the
car by about 2-1(my opinion) I think the body will deteriorate before the
engine will fail.From what I have read on the auto ngs that is not a lot
of mileage,some have reported mileage in the 300,000 (500,000 kloms)
miles on the same engine without touching it.I used slick 50 twice and
then I read that it was a waste of money and it could clog up your oil
filter.And Dupont refused at one time to sell it for auto purposes
because it was not designed for auto use.Apparrently it will only cling
to metal at very high temperatures, much higher than that experienced by
an auto engine. so save your money and go for more frequent oil changes.
cheers and best regards,
Ed Machel

[Wheeler]

Lisa Peeples wrote:
>
> Put this stuff in your car, and kiss the engine good-bye..............
>
> If using good grade brand name oil and changing the oil every 3,000
> miles or 3 months for the entire life of the car, most engines will last
> up to 200,000 miles with no burning of oil. By the time you hit 200,000
> miles you may leak a crap load of oil on the ground, and have other
> problems, but burning oil will NOT be one of them. Why would you use
> this crap if good oil and changing it very often results in no
> damage.....
>

> Thanks...
Crap???????? You are a lot nicer than I am. I have a lot of other
words for this shit. ( slick50 ) None of them are nice. I have used
this shit in my wifes car. Guess what?????? Now I have NO Chevy dealer
that will touch the motor. After 25000 the motor NOW uses oil.

[John Young]

Joe White <jwh...@pov.net> wrote in article
<6dureg$kjk$2...@topsy.kiva.net>...

> In my 91 Maxima - using Slick 50 & Mobil 1 - on a couple of occasions
when I
> have taken the Slick 50 out after a Oil change - mileage drops 10% and
cold
> starting is slower. Add it back and both improve. While others ask for
> scientific proof, or claim I could have gotten 200K miles without, I feel
> that it was like chicken soup - I did not hurt
anything.....................
>
> Lisa Peeples wrote in message <34FB06...@aol.com>...

> >Put this stuff in your car, and kiss the engine good-bye..............
> >
> >If using good grade brand name oil and changing the oil every 3,000
> >miles or 3 months for the entire life of the car, most engines will last
> >up to 200,000 miles with no burning of oil. By the time you hit 200,000
> >miles you may leak a crap load of oil on the ground, and have other
> >problems, but burning oil will NOT be one of them. Why would you use
> >this crap if good oil and changing it very often results in no
> >damage.....
> >
> >Thanks...

Hi Folks,

The merits of engine oil additives can be debated endlessly, but no one can
debate the fact that there is no substitute for oil pressure...particularly
at start-up.

A good prelube unit can add years to the service life an engine by
eliminating the zero oil pressure start-up.

Info on prelubrication systems can be found at HTTP://www.prelube.com

Yes, it is my site...and no, it's not spam. I only posted it as it seems to
be relevant to the topic being discussed here.

John Young (The Old Timer)

[Robert Timothy Gautreaux]

Well, here's my opinion of slick 50. I have a 54 chevy bel-air with the
original 235 six cylinder. In 1990, I re-ringed the engine and replaced
the rod bearings. Otherwise, the engine was original, and had 69K miles.
After I ran the engine for 10K miles to break it in, I added a quart of
slick 50, and ran it for 3K miles. I changed the oil, added another quart
of slick 50 with quaker state 30w, high detergent. I ran that oil for
another 3 K miles. After that, I ran straight 30W. I ran the hell out of
that engine for 6 years, until feb 1996, when the #6 piston shattered from
old age. It never smoked, ran great and had good oil pressure until the
piston broke. The engine had 32 K on those new rings and bearings when I
took it apart to rebuild it completely in 1997. When I had gotten the
engine down to the bare block, the cylinders still had some hone marks
from 32K miles ago, a beautiful cross-hatch pattern. The rod bearings were
still great. This to me means that the slick 50 had reduced the cylinder
wall wear. I believe, i could be wrong, that hone marks should slowly
wear away, and the cylinders should have been glazed from the new rings
breaking in after 32K miles, but the proof was in my block. The rings
were worn in properly, the cylinders were great, and the valve guides were
passable, (i had had them knurled when I did the rings). Also, there was
no excessive sludge in the engine, as I had been told there would be if i
used quaker state... Oh well, I'm sure to get angry rebuttals. Robert
P.S. I still have the #6 piston, and all the mechanics agree that it
broke because of old age and abuse.

[Lewis]

I am curious.. Why did you not replace the pistons when you had the
bottom end disassembled anyway??

[Daniel J Stern]

On 14 Mar 1998, Robert Timothy Gautreaux wrote:

> Well, here's my opinion of slick 50. I have a 54 chevy bel-air with the
> original 235 six cylinder. In 1990, I re-ringed the engine and replaced
> the rod bearings. Otherwise, the engine was original, and had 69K miles.
> After I ran the engine for 10K miles to break it in, I added a quart of
> slick 50, and ran it for 3K miles. I changed the oil, added another quart
> of slick 50 with quaker state 30w, high detergent. I ran that oil for
> another 3 K miles. After that, I ran straight 30W. I ran the hell out of
> that engine for 6 years, until feb 1996, when the #6 piston shattered from
> old age. It never smoked, ran great and had good oil pressure until the
> piston broke. The engine had 32 K on those new rings and bearings when I
> took it apart to rebuild it completely in 1997. When I had gotten the
> engine down to the bare block, the cylinders still had some hone marks
> from 32K miles ago, a beautiful cross-hatch pattern. The rod bearings were
> still great. This to me means that the slick 50 had reduced the cylinder
> wall wear.

This means nothing. I pulled apart a '62 225 out of a wrecking yard with
over 100k on it, all original and it still had hone marks. I changed a
head gasket on a Chrysler 2.5 with 120k on it and it still had hone marks.
Hone marks at 32k miles is nothing. You are not in a position to be
decreeing the magical benefits of Schlock-50 if you've not done a
controlled, methodical test with a control group (untreated engines).

--Daniel

[Lewis]

First the chevy 6 only had 117 miles on it with slick fifty?? with new
rings and connecting rod bearings?? My 79 toyota has 250k and doesn't
burn oil and I have only replaced the valve seals and have never run
slick fifty.

[GMperfrmce]

> On 14 Mar 1998, Robert Timothy Gautreaux wrote:<BR>
>> <BR>

>> > Well, here's my opinion of slick 50. I have a 54 chevy bel-air with

>the<BR>

>> > original 235 six cylinder. In 1990, I re-ringed the engine and

>replaced<BR>

>> > the rod bearings. Otherwise, the engine was original, and had 69K

>miles.<BR>

>> > After I ran the engine for 10K miles to break it in, I added a quart

>of<BR>

>> > slick 50, and ran it for 3K miles. I changed the oil, added another

>quart<BR>

>> > of slick 50 with quaker state 30w, high detergent. I ran that oil

>for<BR>

>> > another 3 K miles. After that, I ran straight 30W. I ran the hell out

>of<BR>

>> > that engine for 6 years, until feb 1996, when the #6 piston shattered

>from<BR>

>> > old age. It never smoked, ran great and had good oil pressure until

>the<BR>

>> > piston broke. The engine had 32 K on those new rings and bearings when

>I<BR>
>> > took it apart to rebuild it completely in 1997. When I had gotten the<BR>

>> > engine down to the bare block, the cylinders still had some hone

>marks<BR>

>> > from 32K miles ago, a beautiful cross-hatch pattern. The rod bearings

>were<BR>

>> > still great. This to me means that the slick 50 had reduced the

>cylinder<BR>
>> > wall wear.<BR>
>> <BR>

>> This means nothing. I pulled apart a '62 225 out of a wrecking yard

>with<BR>
>> over 100k on it, all original and it still had hone marks. I changed a<BR>

>> head gasket on a Chrysler 2.5 with 120k on it and it still had hone

>marks.<BR>
>> Hone marks at 32k miles is nothing. You are not in a position to be<BR>
>> decreeing the magical benefits of Schlock-50 if you've not done a<BR>
>> controlled, methodical test with a control group (untreated engines).<BR>
>> <BR>
>> --Daniel<BR>
><BR>
>First the chevy 6 only had 117 miles on it with slick fifty?? with new<BR>
>rings and connecting rod bearings?? My 79 toyota has 250k and doesn't<BR>
>burn oil and I have only replaced the valve seals and have never run<BR>
>slick fifty.<BR>

I have an 84 Dodge Colt with 180,000 miles, run it all the time until the oil
light comes on, then add 2 quarts, still see a nice cross-hatch pattern on the
cylinder walls when you look down the spark plug holes. I run whatever oil is
on sale in it. Slick 50 is just a waste of money to me.

[Eisboch]

First of all - please note - this is not an endorsement for Slick-50
or recommendation for using it or not. This is simply an experience
I have had with it. (Whew)

Couple of years ago I had an old fun car - a '65 Ford Custom with
the 300 ci six. It had a very slight engine knock and some very noisy
lifters. When it needed a quart of oil, I put Slick 50 in it.
The knock and noisy lifters went away within 20 miles and never
returned. Stuff must do something.

[Wheeler]

Robert Timothy Gautreaux wrote:
>
> Well, here's my opinion of slick 50. I have a 54 chevy bel-air with the

> original 235 six cylinder. In 1990, I re-ringed the engine and replaced

> the rod bearings. Otherwise, the engine was original, and had 69K miles.

> After I ran the engine for 10K miles to break it in, I added a quart of

> slick 50, and ran it for 3K miles. I changed the oil, added another quart

> of slick 50 with quaker state 30w, high detergent. I ran that oil for

> another 3 K miles. After that, I ran straight 30W. I ran the hell out of

> that engine for 6 years, until feb 1996, when the #6 piston shattered from

> old age. It never smoked, ran great and had good oil pressure until the

> piston broke. The engine had 32 K on those new rings and bearings when I

> took it apart to rebuild it completely in 1997. When I had gotten the

> engine down to the bare block, the cylinders still had some hone marks

> from 32K miles ago, a beautiful cross-hatch pattern. The rod bearings were

> still great. This to me means that the slick 50 had reduced the cylinder

> wall wear. I believe, i could be wrong, that hone marks should slowly
> wear away, and the cylinders should have been glazed from the new rings
> breaking in after 32K miles, but the proof was in my block. The rings
> were worn in properly, the cylinders were great, and the valve guides were
> passable, (i had had them knurled when I did the rings). Also, there was
> no excessive sludge in the engine, as I had been told there would be if i
> used quaker state... Oh well, I'm sure to get angry rebuttals. Robert
> P.S. I still have the #6 piston, and all the mechanics agree that it
> broke because of old age and abuse.

The guy that re-built ( I am in a wheelchair ) my motor for me told me
the problem. Because of the slick 50 the rings NEVER SEATED. I put it
in the motor to fast. He then explained to me that Slick 50 does reduce
the wear and tear on the motor by coating every part that moves and gets
oil inside the motot. This goes along with what the dodge dealer told
me. AS a mater of fact, the Dodge dealer told me that by adding
ANYTHING with your oil will void the warenty.

[Steven Fisher]

>The guy that re-built ( I am in a wheelchair ) my motor for me told me
>the problem. Because of the slick 50 the rings NEVER SEATED. I put it
>in the motor to fast. He then explained to me that Slick 50 does reduce
>the wear and tear on the motor by coating every part that moves and gets
>oil inside the motot. This goes along with what the dodge dealer told
>me. AS a mater of fact, the Dodge dealer told me that by adding
>ANYTHING with your oil will void the warenty.

For good reason, crap like that is snake-oil; that's why Slick50 was sued
successfully.

[Lewis]

>
> > Well, here's my opinion of slick 50. I have a 54 chevy bel-air with the
> > original 235 six cylinder. In 1990, I re-ringed the engine and replaced
> > the rod bearings. Otherwise, the engine was original, and had 69K miles.

> . I ran that oil for
> > another 3 K miles. After that, I ran straight 30W. I ran the hell out of
> > that engine for 6 years, until feb 1996,

> > old age. It never smoked, ran great and had good oil pressure until the
> > piston broke. The engine had 32 K on those new rings and bearings when I
> > took it apart to rebuild it completely in 1997. When I had gotten the

> > no excessive sludge in the engine, as I had been told there would be if i

> > used quaker state... Oh well, I'm sure to get angry rebuttals. Robert
> > P.S. I still have the #6 piston, and all the mechanics agree that it
> > broke because of old age and abuse.

IS under 6K miles a year "running the hell out of it???" I put 60K on
my car in the past two years alone. Slick 50 sucks

[Liquid]

we tore down a friend's 5.0 Mustclang when he broke the crank at 182,000
miles. He used nothing but Castrol GTX and Wix filters. The cylinders still
had the cross hatch in them. No additives were ever used. The oil was changed
regularly and there was no sludge in the motor.
My 225/6 had 214,000 miles when I traded it. There were no additives and it
ran like new.
Slick 50 has Teflon WHICH IS A SOLID and is based off of 50 wt gear oil. it
does nothing. PTFE (teflon) was restricted by DuPont (the mfg) because it was
being used in those types of applilcations. DuPont knew the claims were false
and did not want their product associated with it. Slick 50 took them to court
and sued over a fair trade issue that says you can't block sale of an item
because of it's inclusion as an ingrediant and labeled as such. DuPont lost
the legal battle and was forced to sell it again.
Who has more research funds? Slick 50 or Valvoline? If the petroleum companies
thought it was an imprevement, they would have bought it by now.
The oil you purchase has chemical compounds added to it to provide anti
foaming, superior viscosity, cleaning, and increased lubricity. The compounds
are controlled and not very compatable with many additives. The parts house
additives can disrupt the balance and actually cause more damage than good.
As far as running without oil, Briggs and Stratton tested the theory. They ran
identical engines through break in and then added the Slick 50. After more
comperable run times, the oil was drained and the motors started again. Again
they were run at the same speed for the same duration. When dismantled, the
motor with the additive was in much worse shape. The teflon had pressed into
the bearings (as the ads claim) but later peeled out and left indentions.
These indentions created hot spots and more friction. In short, it killed the
engine. Both were ruined, but the treated motor was far worse off.

You're spending lotsa $$$ on a motor. Do you want to take the chance?

Robert Timothy Gautreaux wrote:

> Well, here's my opinion of slick 50. I have a 54 chevy bel-air with the
> original 235 six cylinder. In 1990, I re-ringed the engine and replaced
> the rod bearings. Otherwise, the engine was original, and had 69K miles.

> After I ran the engine for 10K miles to break it in, I added a quart of
> slick 50, and ran it for 3K miles. I changed the oil, added another quart

> of slick 50 with quaker state 30w, high detergent. I ran that oil for

> another 3 K miles. After that, I ran straight 30W. I ran the hell out of

> that engine for 6 years, until feb 1996, when the #6 piston shattered from

> old age. It never smoked, ran great and had good oil pressure until the
> piston broke. The engine had 32 K on those new rings and bearings when I
> took it apart to rebuild it completely in 1997. When I had gotten the

> engine down to the bare block, the cylinders still had some hone marks
> from 32K miles ago, a beautiful cross-hatch pattern. The rod bearings were
> still great. This to me means that the slick 50 had reduced the cylinder
> wall wear. I believe, i could be wrong, that hone marks should slowly
> wear away, and the cylinders should have been glazed from the new rings
> breaking in after 32K miles, but the proof was in my block. The rings
> were worn in properly, the cylinders were great, and the valve guides were
> passable, (i had had them knurled when I did the rings). Also, there was

[Fraser Shortt]

Daniel J Stern wrote in message ...

>On 14 Mar 1998, Robert Timothy Gautreaux wrote:
>
>> Well, here's my opinion of slick 50. I have a 54 chevy bel-air with the
>> original 235 six cylinder. In 1990, I re-ringed the engine and replaced
>> the rod bearings. Otherwise, the engine was original, and had 69K miles.
>> After I ran the engine for 10K miles to break it in, I added a quart of
>> slick 50, and ran it for 3K miles. I changed the oil, added another
quart
>> of slick 50 with quaker state 30w, high detergent. I ran that oil for
>> another 3 K miles. After that, I ran straight 30W. I ran the hell out
of
>> that engine for 6 years, until feb 1996, when the #6 piston shattered
from
>> old age. It never smoked, ran great and had good oil pressure until the
>> piston broke. The engine had 32 K on those new rings and bearings when I
>> took it apart to rebuild it completely in 1997. When I had gotten the
>> engine down to the bare block, the cylinders still had some hone marks
>> from 32K miles ago, a beautiful cross-hatch pattern. The rod bearings
were
>> still great. This to me means that the slick 50 had reduced the cylinder
>> wall wear.
>

>This means nothing. I pulled apart a '62 225 out of a wrecking yard with

>over 100k on it, all original and it still had hone marks. I changed a

>head gasket on a Chrysler 2.5 with 120k on it and it still had hone marks.

>Hone marks at 32k miles is nothing. You are not in a position to be

>decreeing the magical benefits of Schlock-50 if you've not done a

>controlled, methodical test with a control group (untreated engines).
>

>--Daniel
Where in the cylinder travel did you find the hone marks? When rebuilding a
2.5 with god knows how many miles (thanks to Chryslers digital dash) there
was a good amount of wear necessetating a ridge reamer. How do you prevent
serious wear in the cylinders? Is this the result of glazing forming a
protective coating? I wish I could find hone marks!

[Fraser Shortt]

[Daniel J Stern]

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Fraser Shortt wrote:

> >This means nothing. I pulled apart a '62 225 out of a wrecking yard with
> >over 100k on it, all original and it still had hone marks. I changed a
> >head gasket on a Chrysler 2.5 with 120k on it and it still had hone marks.
> >Hone marks at 32k miles is nothing. You are not in a position to be
> >decreeing the magical benefits of Schlock-50 if you've not done a
> >controlled, methodical test with a control group (untreated engines).
> >
> >--Daniel
> Where in the cylinder travel did you find the hone marks? When rebuilding a
> 2.5 with god knows how many miles (thanks to Chryslers digital dash) there
> was a good amount of wear necessetating a ridge reamer.

The particular engine I had in mind when I wrote the above was a '62
Aluminum-block 225 Slant-6 I bought out of a wrecking yard '62 Valiant.
The odometer on the car showed 26,xxx, so it had to be 126,000 miles
(which looked about right considering the condition of the car).
Everything on the engine was all original (head gasket, etc.) and there
was NO ridge of significance in the cylinders. I was able to push the
(stock bore) pistons out of the tops of the cylinders by hand. The crank
was pretty well grooved but those factory-cast, factory-bore iron cylinder
liners only needed a good honing when I rebuilt the block.

> How do you prevent
> serious wear in the cylinders?

Good oil and non-Fram filter, every 3 kilomiles.

--Daniel

E-mail response will bounce unless sent to dastern 'at' umich 'dot' edu
---
Daniel Stern
Automotive Lighting Specialist and Consultant
E-code headlamp conversions, side turn signal repeaters, etc.
Cibie, Hella, Bosch, Marchal, etc.
"Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! HA! THRUST!"
--D. Duck

Contents of this message Copyright (c) 1998 Daniel J. Stern, all rights
reserved. No part of this text may be reproduced in any form without
express permission of author. Permission to quote is granted for the
purposes of e-mail or paper communication.

[Lewis]

Fraser Shortt wrote:
>
> Daniel J Stern wrote in message ...
> >On 14 Mar 1998, Robert Timothy Gautreaux wrote:
> >
> >> Well, here's my opinion of slick 50. I have a 54 chevy bel-air with the
> >> original 235 six cylinder. In 1990, I re-ringed the engine and replaced
> >> the rod bearings. Otherwise, the engine was original, and had 69K miles.
> >> After I ran the engine for 10K miles to break it in, I added a quart of
> >> slick 50, and ran it for 3K miles. I changed the oil, added another
> quart
> >> of slick 50 with quaker state 30w, high detergent. I ran that oil for
> >> another 3 K miles. After that, I ran straight 30W. I ran the hell out
> of
> >> that engine for 6 years, until feb 1996, when the #6 piston shattered
> from
> >> old age. It never smoked, ran great and had good oil pressure until the
> >> piston broke. The engine had 32 K on those new rings and bearings when I
> >> took it apart to rebuild it completely in 1997. When I had gotten the
> >> engine down to the bare block, the cylinders still had some hone marks
> >> from 32K miles ago, a beautiful cross-hatch pattern. The rod bearings
> were
> >> still great. This to me means that the slick 50 had reduced the cylinder
> >> wall wear.
> >

> >This means nothing. I pulled apart a '62 225 out of a wrecking yard with
> >over 100k on it, all original and it still had hone marks. I changed a
> >head gasket on a Chrysler 2.5 with 120k on it and it still had hone marks.
> >Hone marks at 32k miles is nothing. You are not in a position to be
> >decreeing the magical benefits of Schlock-50 if you've not done a
> >controlled, methodical test with a control group (untreated engines).
> >
> >--Daniel
> Where in the cylinder travel did you find the hone marks? When rebuilding a
> 2.5 with god knows how many miles (thanks to Chryslers digital dash) there

> was a good amount of wear necessetating a ridge reamer. How do you prevent
> serious wear in the cylinders? Is this the result of glazing forming a
> protective coating? I wish I could find hone marks!

He only put 32K on the engine after the rings!

[joseph hollinger]

This subject has been done to death.

[Wheeler]

Daniel J Stern wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Fraser Shortt wrote:
>

> > >This means nothing. I pulled apart a '62 225 out of a wrecking yard with
> > >over 100k on it, all original and it still had hone marks. I changed a
> > >head gasket on a Chrysler 2.5 with 120k on it and it still had hone marks.
> > >Hone marks at 32k miles is nothing. You are not in a position to be
> > >decreeing the magical benefits of Schlock-50 if you've not done a
> > >controlled, methodical test with a control group (untreated engines).
> > >
> > >--Daniel
> > Where in the cylinder travel did you find the hone marks? When rebuilding a
> > 2.5 with god knows how many miles (thanks to Chryslers digital dash) there
> > was a good amount of wear necessetating a ridge reamer.
>

> The particular engine I had in mind when I wrote the above was a '62
> Aluminum-block 225 Slant-6 I bought out of a wrecking yard '62 Valiant.
> The odometer on the car showed 26,xxx, so it had to be 126,000 miles
> (which looked about right considering the condition of the car).
> Everything on the engine was all original (head gasket, etc.) and there
> was NO ridge of significance in the cylinders.

O.K. NOW you are cheating my friend. You CAN NOT compair a slant-6 to
any other motor......... They run forever and a day. You can not do
anything to hurt these motors. Now go and buy another motor from a junk
yard and try that. I love those old slant-6's Just not enough H.P.
Did you ever think that the millage could have been 226,000 ??????

[Daniel J Stern]

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 Kit...@hidden.com wrote:

> > This subject has been done to death.
>

> Go to hell asshole. It's not your call to make. Just skip over the
> thread, and go your own way...preferable far away.

Gosh, that was a rational, lucid, cogent, convincing, well-thought-out and
persuasive post. It added materially to the value of these newsgroups for
everybody.

<doffing cap in deference to your supreme Vision of All That Which Is True
And Correct>

--Daniel

[Jack]

The rumor in this country is not to use synthetic oil on a new engine
because it won't break in properly. I mention this because someone said
their engine did not break in because they used slick 50. Total hogwash.
Some brand new German makes, I think Porsche and Audi were mentioned, use
synthetic out of the box. Would they do so if the oil would prevent a break
in? Also, I trust the German and Japanese manufacturers to punch out blocks
and pistons that are awfully close to full break in specs anyway. I don't
know how American machining is nowadays, so I won't comment. It is total
hogwash that you can prevent the break in of an engine. If we had a
lubricant that good, we would no longer deplete engines, but could remove
them from cars that are dead, and put them back in new cars.

Like someone said, Teflon is a solid, and it may get captured by the oil
filter. Although it is of sub-micron size, it expands radically when
heated. A test at the University of Maryland showed a significant oil
pressure drop immediately after using slick 50.

The marketers of Teflon products refuse to state where the test results were
obtained, you know, the results which prove their products invincible. The
reason being, any lab would sue their pants off if people were told the lab
proved Teflon's "great" results. Come on people, use your brains. Putting
a solid material in oil? The same liquid which you filter solids out of
due to the extensive damage they cause? I've said enough.

Jack

[1Wheeler]

Jack wrote:
>
> The rumor in this country is not to use synthetic oil on a new engine
> because it won't break in properly. I mention this because someone said
> their engine did not break in because they used slick 50. Total hogwash.

That was me I think. ( 1Whe...@centuryinter.net ) I will repeat what I
said.
I used Slick in my wifes car ( a NEW DODGE DYNASTY ) The motor did not
break in. It cost me the price of a new motor. I have the pappers to
prove everything that I am saying. The DODGE dealer would not put the
motor in under warenty BECAUSE I used slick-50 !!!!!!!
I had the motor sent back to the Dodge dealer to send to every where
they send it to just to make sure. They was right. READ your warenty
on a new car... If you add any thing to the oil the motor is yours.
Now as far as synthetic oil goes. I did not say anything about that. I
will now. That is what I am using now....... There is a lot of
deference between the 2. I did not mention Porshe or Audi. I have a
Dodge, Chevy Malibu ( that is my car ), and a new Ford mustang for my
daughter. If you would like to see the motor out of my wifes Dodge I
have it at the shop. If you would like to see my chevy or my daughters
Mustang they are at the house. I also have a Lincoln SO my friend if
you would like to go for a ride just let me know. I have given you my
web-address so just drop me an e-mail and I will show you everything. I
have nothing to hide. This is what happened to me by using Slick-50 as
far as anyone else in the world I do not know and do not really
care...............................

> Some brand new German makes, I think Porsche and Audi were mentioned, use
> synthetic out of the box. Would they do so if the oil would prevent a break

Again I said nothing about synthetic oil. That is what I now use.

> in? Also, I trust the German and Japanese manufacturers to punch out blocks
> and pistons that are awfully close to full break in specs anyway. I don't
> know how American machining is nowadays, so I won't comment.

I will comment. I do not THINK that the Dodge motor is an American made
motor. I wish it was...................................

It is total
> hogwash that you can prevent the break in of an engine.

BRING ME A NEW CAR MY FRIEND AND I WILL SHOW YOU. Even If I have to use
hog grease in the oil. Now what do you think of that???????????

If we had a
> lubricant that good, we would no longer deplete engines, but could remove
> them from cars that are dead, and put them back in new cars.
>
> Like someone said, Teflon is a solid, and it may get captured by the oil
> filter. Although it is of sub-micron size, it expands radically when
> heated. A test at the University of Maryland showed a significant oil
> pressure drop immediately after using slick 50.

DAMN What do you think of that shit. You said it I did not. So if I use
Slick 50 I will see a SIGNIFICANT oil pressure drop?????
If so I do not want the shit.....................
Just remember you said it I did not.............

>
> The marketers of Teflon products refuse to state where the test results were
> obtained, you know, the results which prove their products invincible. The
> reason being, any lab would sue their pants off if people were told the lab
> proved Teflon's "great" results. Come on people, use your brains. Putting
> a solid material in oil? The same liquid which you filter solids out of
> due to the extensive damage they cause? I've said enough.

You said enough to make me never use Slick-50 even if I would have had
good results fron my ONE time at using it.........
>
> Jack

[Jack]

1Wheeler, you responded to everything as though my post was meant for you
personally. Wrong, it was meant for the whole group entitled "Slick 50/Dura
Lube any good?" I probably shouldn't have compared synthetic oil to
Slick-50, but I did because the laws of physics dictate what will NOT happen
when using either product. However, I would like to further comment on your
situation. Number one, if I knew that additives voided a warranty, I would
never tell the dealer that I used them. The burden of proof is on them, and
they would never be able to tell you that you used Teflon, my friend. You
were BAMBOOZLED after buying a new car with a lemon of an engine.

You continue to plead that Teflon sticks to engine parts. Ever scrape a
Teflon coated pan with your metal spatula? The stuff comes right off, so
you have to be very very careful. And that Teflon was applied in a very
controlled environment with the goal of a permanent coating! Can you prove
to me that the shearing forces in an engine are far less powerful than
scraping a pan with a kitchen utensil? THE WHOLE IDEA DEFIES THE LAWS OF
PHYSICS. And your darn Dodge dealer, on top of it all, makes an argument to
you that DuPont, the producer of Teflon, refuses to state. As a matter of
fact, DuPont wanted to block the sale of Teflon for engine use, probably
afraid people would sue because it doesn't do anything.

I'm not sure if you caught the key fact of why oil pressure drops when using
Slick-50: Oil pressure is measured from the output of the filter. And the
filter IMMEDIATELY PICKS UP THE TEFLON PARTICLES.

I know, I know, you had an experience. Well consider this: Your experience
did not result because of Slick-50. If it did, if Slick-50 significantly
reduced engine wear, we'd all get many, not 5%, not 10%, but many more miles
per gallon. The combustion engine is very inefficient because the friction
it encounters is ridiculously high. Significantly reduce that friction, and
boy, you'll put a couple small countries out of business.

Yours truly,

Jack

[Xirc]

To whom it may concern,

I recently read an article written by Consumer Reports in which they
tested several oil additives including slick 50. Consumer Reports
found that slick 50 had no performance ehancing effect on the tested
engines and in fact increased the viscosity of the oil which can cause
permanent engine damage.

Bryan

[Jack]

The oil base that Slick-50 mainly consists of is probably 20-50 or straight
30 weight, and that is one reason the viscosity increases.

Jack

Xirc wrote in message <3517c204...@news.ansa.com>...

[Xirc]

To whom it may concern,

I recently read an article by comsumer reports in which they tested
several oil additives including slick 50. They found that slick 50
had no apparent effect on engine performance and in fact increased the
oils viscosity, which is potentially damaging to your car engine.

Bryan

[Rob Nelson]

Xirc wrote in message <35180b8a...@news.ansa.com>...

My 2 cents worth.

While Jack may be a little over zealous with his coments he is correct
here. These products are nothing more than old west snake oil, and while I
will not comment on there potential to do any damage, they do nothing to
improve the performance or longevity of an internal combustion engine and
are a waste of money. Fact is that all you need is in your glove box. Just
read the mantance info in your owners manual and follow it. Don't abuse
your engine and change your oil and fiter every 3000 to 5000 miles and you
will get more life than most people ever need from your car.

The manufacturer of these products have found a way to sell useless
products to unknowing consumers by makeing exaggerated and unsubstantiated
claims and that is a shame. Fact is that Slick 50 has been ordered to cease
all claims of there products performance and longevity increasing aspects by
the government. The reason, they don't work.

Don't look for miracle cures. Just take care of your car and it will take
care of you.

[Eric the Fruitbat]

My favorite part of that Consumer Reports article was the DuPont Engineer's
initial reaction Slick50, "Why the heck would you want to put Teflon in your
engine?"

Rob Nelson wrote in message <6fcv7d$n...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...

[Barry Millman]

Eric the Fruitbat wrote:
>
> My favorite part of that Consumer Reports article was the DuPont Engineer's
> initial reaction Slick50, "Why the heck would you want to put Teflon in your
> engine?"
>
> Rob Nelson wrote in message <6fcv7d$n...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
> >
> >Xirc wrote in message <35180b8a...@news.ansa.com>...
> >>To whom it may concern,
> >>
> >>I recently read an article by comsumer reports in which they tested
> >>several oil additives including slick 50. They found that slick 50
> >>had no apparent effect on engine performance and in fact increased the
> >>oils viscosity, which is potentially damaging to your car engine.
> >>

Last winter I put Dyralube's (I believe it was theirs) ManTrans in my manual
transmission. Previous winters found our car VERY hard to shift untill if fully warmed
up. This past winter, with the ManTrans it always shifted easily. Maybe it's only
kerosene..... but it sure shifts nicely.
BTW, that car was a 1988 Mazda 929. I am now buying a 1995 Dodge Grande Caravan ES with
all the bells & whistles...going to negotiate the price today. Will be buying an
extended warrantee also.
Barry

[James A. Dennis]

I agree that putting teflon into your engine seems silly, but there
are some good additives out there on the market that do not contain
teflon, and in fact one in particular that I will tell anyone that it
does work in some cases! That particular product is Lucas Oil
additive. I had a '73 Dodge Dart 225 slant six, after sitting all day
the mains would rattle upon initial start-up, but after I added Lucas
the very first time and with each following oil change, that problem
stopped completely. I've been running it in all of my autos ever
since, and that little Dart is still running strong today. I also have
a '79 Toyota P/U that has been run on Lucas, and it currently has
227,000 miles on it and still going strong! Lucas contains no teflon,
and has to be added at each oil change, but it does work! Just my
opinion!
James A. Dennis
ASE Certified Auto Tech,
AC Delco Master Mechanic
ProAutoTech Certified

On Sun, 29 Mar 1998 12:18:46 -0500, "Eric the Fruitbat"
<alph...@NOSPAM.earthling.net> wrote:

>My favorite part of that Consumer Reports article was the DuPont Engineer's
>initial reaction Slick50, "Why the heck would you want to put Teflon in your
>engine?"
>
>
>Rob Nelson wrote in message <6fcv7d$n...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
>>
>>Xirc wrote in message <35180b8a...@news.ansa.com>...
>>>To whom it may concern,
>>>
>>>I recently read an article by comsumer reports in which they tested
>>>several oil additives including slick 50. They found that slick 50
>>>had no apparent effect on engine performance and in fact increased the
>>>oils viscosity, which is potentially damaging to your car engine.
>>>

[Mark Dean]

Yes. I like mine on an english muffin, or spread over roasted chicken.
Very tasty!

[David Keesey]

I put DuPont teflon in my B210 that died trying to go over 60mph and then it
ran stronger than the cheap white metal it was built of could last. I'm
pissed I can't find the teflon anymore, that RPF or what ever is not the
same. I could hear an RPM differnce while adding it.

Just my thought
DSK

James A. Dennis wrote in message <35203c57...@news.mindspring.com>...

[Ken Fong]

I've had very good experiences with a PTFE type additive previously
called Nulon and documented a 3-5% improvement in fuel economy after
adding the stuff in. This was consistent in my last two cars, an old
Lotus Elan and Daihatsu Charade GTTi, which has a 1 liter twin-cam
turbo engine.

I'm interested in this line as I'm contemplating adding Slick 50 to my
newish (10000km) 4G63 turbo engine in my wagon and I'm having second
thoughts after reading these mails. Would appreciate any other
comments from users. Thanks

Ken Fong

[Brian Porter]

Just so happened to have this saved up.. FTC settled with Slick 50.. It's
snake oil, pure and simple.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9707/slick.htm

[DG]

Brian,

The FTC settlement does not draw that conclusion. Your statement is false.
The complaint is about Slick 50 advertising and is summed up by the excerpt:
"it prohibits the Quaker State subsidiaries from claiming that any
other
Slick 50 motor vehicle lubricant reduces wear on a part, extends the
part's
life, lowers engine temperature, reduces toxic emissions, increases gas
mileage or increases horsepower unless they can substantiate the
claim."

The phrase "...unless they can substantiate the claim" is the clincher.
Slick50
has not substantiated their claims.

I don't use Slick50 because I won't put Teflon particles into my engines. I
suspect (but cannot prove) that there may be negative effects that far
outweigh
the possible (but not proven) benefits.

Brian Porter wrote in message <6gunlg$jm$1...@wbnws01.ne.highway1.com>...

[Sam]

One thing all of you have forgotten is that when the PTFE's were first
used in an engine oil additive Dupont actively refused to sell the product
to these manufacturers once it was found out the additive manufacturer's
intentions. The product is and was never designed for what they are using if
for and Dupont had numerous tests that attested these facts.

PTFE's were designed for a "non lubricated" cold temperature friction
reduction environment ... I.E. "OUTER SPACE". The molecules (actually
powdered flakes) are considerably large and the additive manufacturers have
to compress (shrink) the size quite dramatically, making it unstable as well
as giving it a nice ability to "clot". Remember that PTFEs are a "liquid
suspended SOLID!"

To make this short, Dupont was sued by these manufacturers to be able to
purchase the PTFE and lost. At the time there was not adequate info stating
that it was beneficial or detrimental to an engine or for that matter that
it did what the oil additive manufacturers claimed it did. For this Dupont
had to sell to these companies (they still do).
There are also overseas companies manufacturing this crap and marketing
it under another of numerous names. As one product line (name) loses favor,
they pop out a new "product of the week" under a different name and additive
names, yet you are effectively purchasing the same product.

Other Articles: (including my own)

http://www.centuryperformance.com/engine1.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~jamesdavis/TIP043.html
http://www.uneaqdesigns.com/civic/others/snakeoil.html

............ Enjoy =)

Sam Solace
Century Performance Center
http://www.centuryperformance.com

Race Parts, Tech, Chat Room for "Racers", Newsgroup, LOW PRICES, the
Internet's FIRST "Online Speed Shop" ... Built by racers, For racers!
(888) 682-5009 Toll-Free order line
(702) 770-1057 Tech and Help Line

DG wrote in message <6h2bum$1dn$1...@ernie.rsvl.unisys.com>...

[rl...@cheerful.com]

My 91 CRX DX has 180K miles. I've tried Slick 50, Dura Lube, Prolong,
and the latest Motor Up. My engine still runs strong and burns a quart
of oil every 3,500 miles of hard driving (use to be 5,000 miles per
quart). Slick 50 and Dura Lube produced no noticible improvement in
any areas advertised. Prolong worked as advertised until next oil
change. Motor Up provided slighty better rev and smoother idle than
Prolong. Have not change oil yet since adding Motor Up.

I drive my car hard and oil change interval has been between 5000
miles and 7500 miles depending on how hard I have been driving -
following mfr's recommendation.

On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:16:08 -0500, "DG" <DSD...@NO.SPAM.aol.com>
wrote:

[rl...@cheerful.com]

Please substantiate this.
Where can I personally find this information?

[fred]

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 05:33:07 GMT, rl...@cheerful.com said this

>My 91 CRX DX has 180K miles. I've tried Slick 50, Dura Lube, Prolong,
>and the latest Motor Up. My engine still runs strong and burns a quart
>of oil every 3,500 miles of hard driving (use to be 5,000 miles per
>quart). Slick 50 and Dura Lube produced no noticible improvement in
>any areas advertised. Prolong worked as advertised until next oil
>change. Motor Up provided slighty better rev and smoother idle than
>Prolong. Have not change oil yet since adding Motor Up.

I find it hard to believe that you were scammed not once but 4 times!
Are you a slow learner?

[Sam]

I Did substantiate it ...

--

Sam Solace
Century Performance Center
http://www.centuryperformance.com

Race Parts, Tech, Chat Room for "Racers", Newsgroup, LOW PRICES, the
Internet's FIRST "Online Speed Shop" ... Built by racers, For racers!
(888) 682-5009 Toll-Free order line
(702) 770-1057 Tech and Help Line

rl...@cheerful.com wrote in message <353598bf...@news.adnc.com>...

[Sam]

You are getting first hand ... I did the testing, I used a few of my own
vehicles as well as monitored customers cars that had requested the
products.

How did you get the impression it was just a theory or repeated biased
info? I'm very opinionated and if I like a product that I test, I like it
... if I do not, that fact will be stated as well.
I have this big problem with selling products that are crap, even though
the general public follows in like a herd to purchase them. If the product
is worth it and passes my own testing, so be it ... and it may very well be
a product line I will re-sell. It may be stupid, chopping off good business
that way, but I prefer a quality reputation. By the way, I'm currently doing
testing with ProLong ...

........ Sam

--
Sam Solace
Century Performance Center
http://www.centuryperformance.com

Race Parts, Tech, Chat Room for "Racers", Newsgroup, LOW PRICES, the
Internet's FIRST "Online Speed Shop" ... Built by racers, For racers!
(888) 682-5009 Toll-Free order line
(702) 770-1057 Tech and Help Line

rl...@cheerful.com wrote in message <3536b1f7...@news.adnc.com>...
>How about some unbiased written articles disclaiming these products
>and not word of mouth information which can be third, fourth, fifth...
>hand information. I have spoken to real aerospace engineers as well as
>real race mechanics and all of them can only theorize and none of them
>have real hard evidence like a controlled test.

>
>On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 10:26:48 -0700, "Sam"
><Race...@centuryperformance.com> wrote:
>
>>I Did substantiate it ...
>>
>>--
>>Sam Solace
>>Century Performance Center
>>http://www.centuryperformance.com
>>

>Are these the only people you have conferred with and have came to a
>conclusion on this product and its likes? You have based you opinion
>on only one source of "information?" I'm not trying to blast anyone. I
>just like to get some hard evidence on this matter since everyone seem
>to blast all these products eventhough none of them have actually even
>tried any of them.
>
>Convince me please.

[rl...@cheerful.com]

[Daniel J Stern]

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Sam wrote:

> By the way, I'm currently doing testing with ProLong ...

Be sure your test includes internal engine corrosion and seal damage due
to the high levels of chlorine in this worthless crap.

--Daniel

[rl...@cheerful.com]

I guess you really didn't read my post or you just didn't understand
it.

Scammed? Hardly. It's indicative that you have made a decision
without any personal research. Have you tried any of these products or
did you just relied on someone else's opinion? Let me guest. You read
about it on the internet, heard it through a friend of a friend who
himself or herself never personally tried it or is it just plain
skeptism. Or are you one of those ignorant uneducated individuals with
low self esteen whos purpose on this newsgroup is to blast others?
Since I was unable to reply to you via e-mail because you provided
none I am assuming it is the latter.

If you continue to do what you have always done, you will continue to
get what you have always gotten. Try an open mind. You'll be surprise
how many people out there are wrong. If the majority is right then why
is it only a minority is truely successful in their endeavor?

[DG]

I, too, heard that the "chlorine" in Prolong may cause engine damage over
time. Exactly what chlorine compound is used in Prolong? My guess it
that whatever is used breaks down and releases chlorine which combines
with hydrogen to form hydrochloric acid. Can any chemists respond?

BTW, I also read that the zinc in some addtives may also cause engine
damage.

DG

Daniel J Stern wrote in message ...

>On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Sam wrote:
>

>> By the way, I'm currently doing testing with ProLong ...
>

[Hiker]

My dad told me that the US Air Force used PTFE in their jet engines. He was
a jet engine mechanic on the F-4 so he should know what he is talking
about. If its good enough for the Air Force, its good enough for me. I
started using SLICK 50 in my 85 Bronco II when it had 25000 miles.After two
to three thousand miles the engine started running cooler and revved better.
Since its worked for me before, I would use it again.

[Mark Dean]

Why does this PTFE crap persist?

Clue #1: If PTFE is such a good bearing material, why not just make the
bearings out of it? Oh, wait - it's a soft plastic and will quickly be
ground out of the journals. PTFE is a low friction material, not a good
bearing material. ONce oil pressure is built up, the crank and rods do not
touch their bearings, they ride on a film of oil, negating any friction
reduction that PTFE could provide. What's that you say? It reduces
friction in the cylinder bores? Try getting a piece of PTFE and dragging a
piston ring across it. Nice little curly-Q of PTFE shaved off. No, no
PTFE in the bores either.

Clue #2: How many manufacturers put PTFE in their engines? None.
Consider that the Big 3's CEO's are all A) greedy and B) short sighted
(can't see beyond the next bonus check). Now, if they could put 25¢ of
PTFE in with the oil at the plant and get the benifits that the snake oil
producers claim, they would do it in a heartbeat. Can you see the ads -
"The new Chrysler engines. 20% more power. 10% more fuel economy. And,
they will NEVER wear out.". Their sales would skyrocket, all of the
executives would make a huge fortune (even by their standards) and retire.
Of course, future sales would be screwed, but all of the people responsible
would be living on their own private islands and unavailable for comment.
With the massive CAFE fines that the Big 3 will be facing in the next few
years (a result of all of those high proffit truck and SUV sales, and low
econo-box sales), my guess is that they would pay the retail price for each
bottle of this stuff if it only increased fuel mileage by what they claim.
But no manufacturer uses any of this stuff.

[Francisco R. de Leon]

Hello rl56,

Bought an 80 Jeep CJ7 4.2 straight six with 45k miles, changed the oil
every 5k miles and got 15.5 mpg consistently on the highway for two (2)
years. Oil pressure dropped over a five (5) week period down to 7 to 8
psi. Couldn't afford labor and parts at that time, so I gambled on a
quart of Petrotech 2000 (later to be marketed as Slick 50). Drove about
1200 miles as the oil pressure kept dropping, but began logging 16.5
mpg! That's about 6.5% better mileage, and clunking noise during cold
winter startups disappeared. At 4 to 5 psi, the rate of pressure drop
became infinitessimal. Drove the Jeep until the main engine bearings
started grinding -- the oil pressure gauge read 0 psi, and the odometer
read 88k miles. Took two weeks vacation after required parts arrived
from mail order (JC Whitney, etc.) and began engine rebuild. Completed
break-in after 3k miles on rebuilt engine (tip: drilled a small hole
1/4" deep into the oil-side of the oil pan drain plug and force-fitted a
cylindrical lodestone magnet, not ceramic -- did wonders for removing
metal from oil during break-in period, kept it there after). Retreated
with a quart of Slick 50 every 50k miles (that is, @ 91k and @ 41k,
odometer max is 99,999). When the odometer read 66k (that's 78,000
miles on the rebuilt engine), an acquaintance bought the Jeep and drove
it another 60k miles. An acquaintance of ours bought the Jeep from him
and put another 75k miles on the engine -- he's still driving it around
Suffolk county in Long Island.

After selling the Jeep, I bought an 85 Camaro 2.8 V-6 EFI from by
brother with 35k miles on it, changed the oil every 5k miles and got 25
mpg consistenly on the highway for six (6) months. Treated the engine
with Slick 50 and after 800 or so miles, began logging 26.5 mpg, which
is about 6% better mileage. I tried Dura Lube when the odometer read
90k miles and kept logging 26.5 mpg on the highway. The Camaro
maintained this number until I totaled it with the odometer reading 45k
miles (like Jeep, odometer max is 99,999).

Was also driving an 86 Volvo 240DL wagon, bought off my sister when the
odometer had 38k miles, been treated with Slick 50 or Dura Lube every
45k to 50k miles, and yes, logged better mileage, although only a 5%
improvement to 23.5 mpg. Today, the odometer reads 180,105 miles
(unlike the Jeep and Camaro, odometer max is 999,999).

I'm not paid by anybody to relate the above, but let's see: with the
Volvo, 50k miles at 23.5 mpg means I used up about 2,127 gallons at 5%
improved efficiency, which means had I not used any engine treatment, it
would be 50k miles at 22.4 mpg, or 2,232 gallons, or 105 more gallons.
At $1.25 a gallon, averaged over the past few years, that's over $130
saved in fuel costs every 50k miles, or about $380 since I had the
Volvo. I treated the engine three (3) times: $30 + $25 + $15 = $70
(prices kept dropping, you see) in total engine treatment costs.

Nothing astronomical. Nothing scientific. But real, personal
experiences. Doesn't appear to harm the engines, but does appear to
improve efficiency. How? Less friction, perhaps (technically, I cannot
prove anything without "scientific" testing in a controlled
environment).

Why do I keep doing it which ends up helping keep these companies in
business? I upgrade my own PCs and try different CPUs and overdrive
chips. I use those gadgets that monitor a fridge/freezer/washer's
electrical requirements and adjusts the juice to the electric motors
accordingly -- my four (4) year old daughter commented that "they're not
as noisy anymore". I've stopped using incandescent lamps at home
(except for the bulbs in the oven/freezer/fridge) and use only
fluorescent fixtures -- they cost more up front, but I haven't replaced
a single one out of the 28 or so I've installed 38 months ago. I have
gas, not oil heat. Some people collect stamps...

Regards,
Franko de Leon

rl...@cheerful.com wrote:

> My 91 CRX DX has 180K miles. I've tried Slick 50, Dura Lube, Prolong,
> and the latest Motor Up. My engine still runs strong and burns a quart
>
> of oil every 3,500 miles of hard driving (use to be 5,000 miles per
> quart). Slick 50 and Dura Lube produced no noticible improvement in
> any areas advertised. Prolong worked as advertised until next oil
> change. Motor Up provided slighty better rev and smoother idle than
> Prolong. Have not change oil yet since adding Motor Up.
>

> I drive my car hard and oil change interval has been between 5000
> miles and 7500 miles depending on how hard I have been driving -
> following mfr's recommendation.
>
> On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:16:08 -0500, "DG" <DSD...@NO.SPAM.aol.com>
> wrote:
>

[Steve Lacker]

rl...@cheerful.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 06:38:59 GMT, no...@none.com (fred) wrote:

> >I find it hard to believe that you were scammed not once but 4 times!
> >Are you a slow learner?
>
> I guess you really didn't read my post or you just didn't understand
> it.
>
> Scammed? Hardly. It's indicative that you have made a decision
> without any personal research. Have you tried any of these products or
> did you just relied on someone else's opinion?

No one who understands a whit of chemistry or physics *needs* to try
these products in order to know they don't work. Their claims are
impossible.

And stop misusing the word "research." Trying snake oils and seeing if
you think you feel any difference is NOT research. Taking a dozen
identical engines, filling them with the different products, running
them through the same load profiles, then tearing them down and
inspecting for damage is how you conduct meaningful research.

--
Steve Lacker
sglacker at texas dot net

If you can’t take the time to help fight SPAM by converting the above
address, you wouldn’t like my response to your mail anyway :-)

[Campfire]

The only product I have heard any decent(not fourth or fifth-hand) info on
was Power-up. I believe the Edmonton Fire dept uses it and had good
results. There is a local retailer that sells it in my area but for the
price they want I haven't taken a chance on it yet. I don't know if any of
the additives are worth it. And until I see solid third-party scientific
analysis on them, I doubt I'll be buying them.

Dave

Sam <Race...@centuryperformance.com> wrote in article
<3536d...@news.greatbasin.net>...

[Campfire]

I'm a technologist at an aerospace plant where we make gearboxes, oil pumps
and other components for jet engines. We use only straight engine oil in
our engines. Nowhere in the maintenance manuals can I find any PTFE
additives listed, nore have I ever heard of them being used. The bearings
in these engines are lubricated by .030 dia oil jets in many cases. It
doesn't take a very big particle to restrict oil flow, or to clog filters
where the mesh is measured in microns. Perhaps the USAF used them, but I'd
not want to be the one using them in our engines without the manufacturer's
ok.

Dave

Hiker <jew...@toad.net> wrote in article <3537e...@news6.kcdata.com>...

[Warren Davies]

In the UK we have a new product from Dupont called Greased Lightning
which claims to be much better than Slik50, and it is cheaper. It is
based on Teflon. I have tried it in an old Micra which has done 100,000
miles, and it is running better than ever.

[rl...@cheerful.com]

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 19:57:18 -0400, "Hiker" <jew...@toad.net> wrote:

>My dad told me that the US Air Force used PTFE in their jet engines. He was
>a jet engine mechanic on the F-4 so he should know what he is talking
>about. If its good enough for the Air Force, its good enough for me. I
>started using SLICK 50 in my 85 Bronco II when it had 25000 miles.After two
>to three thousand miles the engine started running cooler and revved better.
>Since its worked for me before, I would use it again.
>
>
>
>

You have just brought up something that I have forgotten. I worked on
the engines on F-4s in the Navy for six years and then F-14s for one
year and I do now remember using synthetic oil with those markings. I
didn't know what they stood for then.

I tried SLICK 50 when I only had 15K miles on my Honda and found no
difference in engine perfomance or improvement in gas mileage. Since
my Honda now have 181K miles and still running strong the SLICK 50 did
not harm my engine in anyway like all the critics swore that it would.

I'm going to try Prolong in my Eclipse turbo Spyder at next oil
change. Oh oh, I think I just started another "thing."

[Charles Cochran]

SPAM!!!!

[Mr500CM]

Maybe I'm the only person who saw results using Slick50.....I had an 84 Maxima with
40,000 on it back in 89. After my first treatment mpg improved from 18- to 24. No
loss of oil pressure. I continued to us it every 50,000 after that. The car was
recently totaled by a drunk driver, but the engine sounded as good as the day I
bought it. It did not use any oil at all. I used it in my 86 Camery and my 84 Accord,
there still running fine.

Lance
To reply, remove (NO SPAM) in address.

[Riddler]

rl...@cheerful.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 06:38:59 GMT, no...@none.com (fred) wrote:
>

> >On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 05:33:07 GMT, rl...@cheerful.com said this
> >

> >>My 91 CRX DX has 180K miles. I've tried Slick 50, Dura Lube, Prolong,
> >>and the latest Motor Up. My engine still runs strong and burns a quart
> >>of oil every 3,500 miles of hard driving (use to be 5,000 miles per
> >>quart). Slick 50 and Dura Lube produced no noticible improvement in
> >>any areas advertised. Prolong worked as advertised until next oil
> >>change. Motor Up provided slighty better rev and smoother idle than
> >>Prolong. Have not change oil yet since adding Motor Up.
> >

> >I find it hard to believe that you were scammed not once but 4 times!
> >Are you a slow learner?
>
> I guess you really didn't read my post or you just didn't understand
> it.
>
> Scammed? Hardly. It's indicative that you have made a decision
> without any personal research. Have you tried any of these products or

> did you just relied on someone else's opinion? Let me guest. You read
> about it on the internet, heard it through a friend of a friend who
> himself or herself never personally tried it or is it just plain
> skeptism. Or are you one of those ignorant uneducated individuals with
> low self esteen whos purpose on this newsgroup is to blast others?
> Since I was unable to reply to you via e-mail because you provided
> none I am assuming it is the latter.
>
> If you continue to do what you have always done, you will continue to
> get what you have always gotten. Try an open mind. You'll be surprise
> how many people out there are wrong. If the majority is right then why
> is it only a minority is truely successful in their endeavor?

Come on,.., why people are still fighting for that,... ???
You are loosing your time and money,.. If this stuf is so good,.
why the company as a list of "suit" (bad word?) on them ??
This company as problem with justice cause they introduce false
informations in their ads and all the thing they claim,. they was
never able to prove it in any way... Like somebody said below in
the post,. if this thing was so good it would be intoduced in the
dealers car,. before today AND would be at least recommended in
the owner manual you receive with the car you buy... When they
build engine with bearings that are supposed to work with regular
oil,..10w30 etc,.., if you put anything else you are messing with
the engine health. As for an example,., in my HONDA CRX manual it's
written BLACK ON WHITE to not use even syntetic oil ! Because they
did not engineer their car to work with syntetic oil !
My car is built for 10w30 oil , I am going to use that...
Would you put LEADED gas in your car , even if it's written UNLEADED
gas only on the gas trap door ????

Ask any Formula 1 race driver / tech to see what they use as
oil in there engine...

Ask any Ferrari owner to see what he put in is engine ...

Ask ANY chemical / physic eng. to see what he is going to tell you...

This oil additive stuff is bad , bad or do nothing good... except
putting money in that companys pocket.

Just my opinion....
See ya
Riddler

______________________________________________________________________
Riddler
______________________________________________________________________
Je déteste les courriers électroniques poubelles!!!!!
Enlever les " z " dans l'adresse de retour pour me répondre.
Remove all " z " from reply adress for responding.

[iCOM Subscriber]

I have an `86 Accord auto with 190,000 miles on it and I used slick 50
twice in it .I can`t really say whetheer there was an improvement or not
but I do know the engine is as strong as when I bought the car (used )
with 20,000 miles on it and it still cruises at 100mph + where legal no
problem . (Montana) last year.It is driven every day around town and on
the highway and I change the oil and filter every 2000 miles .

Ed

[hitman]

I sold my 1964 RAMBLER with 146,000 miles. Used 10W30 in the190-70 era when oils
may not have been as good as today. If you maintain a car it doesn't need
unproven gimmicks, but I certainly would use something that's proven and
accepted by car makers.
Ron

Sebastian Fl (originally NJ, toms River, Neptune, Maplewood, Brick)

[rl...@cheerful.com]

Charlse Cochran?
Frank?

Finally, someone with intellegence.

Why is it only those who never tried any of the products claim they're
snake oil?

Will the person who doesn't know the definition of "research" please
look it up in the dictionary. If you don't have one please go to your
local library if you know where it is. You can find it in your
telephone directory. While your'e at it, do a library "reseach" on how
to properly conduct a research. Hint, there are different types of
research for different types of subjects. Also, while your'e in the
library check out a few books and learn to read properly. Reading and
comprehending is not the same. So, did you purchase several brands of
several different type of headache medicine and fed them to you mother
to see which one really works before you took "that" one. Maybe you
think they're snake oil also. If you took and it did work, are you
certain it wasn't just a plecebo affect?

For all those "laboratory researchers" out there. Results from
labroratory researches are never 100 percent accurate. I repair
defects on equipment designed by overpaid engineers who have done so
much research that their head hurts.

On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:36:26 -0600, Charles Cochran <ctre...@ris.net>
wrote:

[Mike Schneíder]

In article <3537e...@news6.kcdata.com>, "Hiker" <jew...@toad.net> wrote:

>My dad told me that the US Air Force used PTFE in their jet engines. He was
>a jet engine mechanic on the F-4 so he should know what he is talking
>about. If its good enough for the Air Force, its good enough for me.

How many jet fighters use internal combustion engines?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To prevent email spam, my email address is altered. To reach me, you
must replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS.

Surviving without a Slave Number: http://www.ime.net/none/
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
A Military Action: http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
Ian Goddard's TWA-800 site: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm
"Votescam: The Stealing of America": http://www.copi.com/votescam/toc.htm
They screwed people left and right. http://users.aol.com/beachbt/screwold.txt

[rl...@cheerful.com]

It's funny that so many of us will smoke a product that is known to
cause lung cancer, drink alchohol that will damage our liver, or drive
in a reckless manner which can kill us but would not even try
something that "may" improve our car's engine performance or "may"
improve our car's engine's longevity. It's even more funny that we
base our decision on hearsay.

"Hearsay?" I swear I'm not a lawyer. I don't drink blood. Just
kidding.

[Daniel J Stern]

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 rl...@cheerful.com wrote:

> Why is it only those who never tried any of the products claim they're
> snake oil?

Because some of us know a thing or two about tribology, the science of
lubrication.

> Will the person who doesn't know the definition of "research" please
> look it up in the dictionary.

What are your tribological credentials? Or are you just pouring these
scam products down your engine's gullet and calling it "research"? Do you
have an identical car that is driven in an identical manner that does NOT
get the goop dumped into it, for a control? Please, do tell us all about
your "research" credentials and procedures.

> For all those "laboratory researchers" out there. Results from
> labroratory researches are never 100 percent accurate.

Nevertheless, they're much more dependable than random, uncontrolled
anecdotal bullshit.

> I repair defects on equipment designed by overpaid engineers who have
> done so much research that their head hurts.

And those defects, no doubt, are caused in part by your asinine refusal to
just follow the goddamned book and use real oil and real filters, changed
at the correct interval.

Sheesh...some people will do ANYTHING to justify spending $19.99 ($29.99,
$39.99, $49.99, four easy payments of $9.99...whatever). You're the
first I've seen, however, who continues an activity that could be emulated
in all of the important parts by placing a largish stack of $20 bills on a
concrete floor and setting them on fire.

--Daniel

[Lewis]

When you have two family members who are chemical engineers working for two of the
largest oil companies then you may think its more than heresay and I don't drink or
smoke or drive to kill myself or my cars.

[Mike Schneíder]

In article <3539D5...@virgin.net>, warren...@virgin.net wrote:

>In the UK we have a new product from Dupont called Greased Lightning
>which claims to be much better than Slik50

Big deal. *Everything* including piss down the hole is better than Slick50.

And DuraLube? Back in my naive & cheap days I bought some of that crap
and "stretched" it by using only half on one oil change. After the next
oil change, I went to pour the rest in and was horrified to see a huge
blob (apparantly congealed teflon flakes) plug the spout of the bottle.
Thankfully it didn't fall in....

>and it is cheaper. It is
>based on Teflon. I have tried it in an old Micra which has done 100,000
>miles, and it is running better than ever.

If you have a really worn engine, I can see how using a heavier oil
would do as well (a thicker film between loose componants will prevent
blow-by). But neither heavy oil nor particulates should be used in a
newer, tighter engine (unless you wish to turn it into a worn engine).

[Guillermo Casanova]

I have a 1981 MB 300 SD, diesel 5 cylinder.
These engines are supposed to go well over 200 miles if the oil is
change regularly. The car spun a main bearing on me about 2 months ago
at 197K miles. I had used both slick 50 and duralube. I used duralube
once, and slick 50 or T-plus (another product claiming to have more
ptfe's than slick 50) on more than one occasion. These products claim
effectiveness for 50k miles at which time you should renew treatment. I
was renewing treatment yearly (about 15k miles).

I bought the car with 130K miles, so if damage existed prior would it
have not surfaced earlier? Or maybe these products prolonged the life of
the engine? Nonetheless, I am a little skeptical of the effectiveness of
these products. It may be wiser simply to change your oil every 3k miles
along with filter(s). I have even heard some auto part guys state that
these products may end up lessening flow through the oil journals. I
don't know if there is any truth to that. I was running straight 40w and
occasionally adding Moreys oil stabilizer.

Anyway I am looking for a MB diesel engine with low/good miles.

Bill C.

[Eric the Fruitbat]

Well, I *actually* used Slick50 in a couple of different cars at the 50 and
100-thou mark and can honestly say that the car ran no better or worse.

I owned a Plymouth Acclaim while my father owned one. Same year and
everything. I used the stuff, he didn't. They ran the same when they got to
100-thou.

Our secret? Change the oil every 3 to 5-thou and you'll be fine.

Maybe that's too simple...

rl...@cheerful.com wrote in message <353ada5a...@news.adnc.com>...

[Luke Nelson]

I got a thought on this slick 50/duralube thread.

It is my thought that those who use oil additives tend to change thier oil
and possiably take fairly good care of thier vehicles.

I wonder how long thier cars would last without the additives, but reguler
oil changes? My old Toyota went 460,000 miles - my AMC hornet 300,000,
and my IH travelall is at 291,000 miles and doing just fine.

Luke

[Steve Lacker]

rl...@cheerful.com wrote:
>
> Charlse Cochran?
> Frank?
>
> Finally, someone with intellegence.
>
> Why is it only those who never tried any of the products claim they're
> snake oil?

Because we know better than to risk our engines on fairy tales.

>
> Will the person who doesn't know the definition of "research" please
> look it up in the dictionary. If you don't have one please go to your
> local library if you know where it is. You can find it in your
> telephone directory. While your'e at it, do a library "reseach" on how
> to properly conduct a research. Hint, there are different types of
> research for different types of subjects.

1) Despite the fact that jubior high school kids are taught that going
to the library and copying down other people's ideas on various subjects
is "research," it is not.
2) Saying "my engine revs better" is not "research"
3) Various groups and companies *have* done REAL research on oil
additives (Briggs and Stratton, for one), and the results of their
research are among the reasons that the snake oil companies don't make
the wild claims they used to make. They got CAUGHT in the lie- Briggs
actually found *increased* wear on cylinder walls, because the PTFE
solid particles filled the surface crevices that normally retain the oil
to lubricate the rings. Result: the rings ran dry.

>
> For all those "laboratory researchers" out there. Results from
> labroratory researches are never 100 percent accurate. I repair
> defects on equipment designed by overpaid engineers who have done so
> much research that their head hurts.

If you can do the job better than those "overpaid" engineers, why aren't
you doing it?

[DG]

Some people don't need a trainload of data before they try something
new. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

How much data is enough?

For common people like me, "reasonable" information is good enough.
I'm an engineer by trade and practical by nature. I know all about the
"scientific process"...I taught it in schools.

I don't need "scientific" data for everything. If something makes rational
sense and the risk is low, I'll consider trying it. If I'm satisfied, I'll
keep
using it until something better comes along or I observe results I don't
want.

DG

Steve Lacker wrote in message <353C11...@spam.thanks>...

>rl...@cheerful.com wrote:
>>
>> Charlse Cochran?
>> Frank?
>>
>> Finally, someone with intellegence.
>>
>> Why is it only those who never tried any of the products claim they're
>> snake oil?
>

>Because we know better than to risk our engines on fairy tales.
>
>>

>> Will the person who doesn't know the definition of "research" please
>> look it up in the dictionary. If you don't have one please go to your
>> local library if you know where it is. You can find it in your
>> telephone directory. While your'e at it, do a library "reseach" on how
>> to properly conduct a research. Hint, there are different types of
>> research for different types of subjects.
>

>1) Despite the fact that jubior high school kids are taught that going
>to the library and copying down other people's ideas on various subjects
>is "research," it is not.
>2) Saying "my engine revs better" is not "research"
>3) Various groups and companies *have* done REAL research on oil
>additives (Briggs and Stratton, for one), and the results of their
>research are among the reasons that the snake oil companies don't make
>the wild claims they used to make. They got CAUGHT in the lie- Briggs
>actually found *increased* wear on cylinder walls, because the PTFE
>solid particles filled the surface crevices that normally retain the oil
>to lubricate the rings. Result: the rings ran dry.
>
>>

>> For all those "laboratory researchers" out there. Results from
>> labroratory researches are never 100 percent accurate. I repair
>> defects on equipment designed by overpaid engineers who have done so
>> much research that their head hurts.
>

[SOS Automotive]

Guillermo Casanova <casa...@synopsys.com> wrote in article
<353B97...@synopsys.com>...

Hi Bill,

There is no substitute for oil pressure. You might consider looking as a
prelube system. Info available at HTTP://www.prelube.com

regards

John

[P.J. Hartman]

rl...@cheerful.com wrote:

>It's funny that so many of us will smoke a product that is known to
>cause lung cancer, drink alchohol that will damage our liver, or drive
>in a reckless manner which can kill us but would not even try
>something that "may" improve our car's engine performance or "may"
>improve our car's engine's longevity. It's even more funny that we
>base our decision on hearsay.

Okay, rl56, then try this. Next time you change your oil, don't put
in any oil. Instead use 1 quart of Slick 50, 1 quart of Prolong, 1
quart of Duralube, 1 quart of Motor-Up, etc. If the manufacturers'
claims are true, you'll probably be getting 50% more power, 70% better
fuel economy, etc.

All for only $100 or so of oil additives. Quite a bargain, that.

--
P.J. Hartman mailto:har...@tconl.com
Corvette, Talon, MGB, ZX-11, GS450LX, and Neon
http://www.tconl.com/~hartman

[Steve Lacker]

DG wrote:
>
> Some people don't need a trainload of data before they try something
> new. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

In the case of PTFE additives for engine oil, its "nothing risked,
nothing destroyed."

> How much data is enough?

I wonder that too. There's a LOT of solid scientific data against PTFE
additives, and nothing but anecdotal data for them. I'm waiting for just
ONE good piece of data for additives.

>
> I don't need "scientific" data for everything. If something makes rational
> sense and the risk is low, I'll consider trying it. If I'm satisfied, I'll
> keep
> using it until something better comes along or I observe results I don't
> want.

Agreed again. I've gotten 380,000 miles out of one of my engines with
plain old 10w30 dinosaur juice. Now I'm seeing how much further it and
the others will go on synthetic oil, which has a proven record. No need
for me to risk destroying a 3000+ dollar piece of machinery (just the
engine) just on a "maybe itll give me 1/2 mpg more" gamble.