Slick 50

[stevetubbyturbo]

I got myself some Slick 50 engine treatment with a fuel and oil pack.

The main reason got it was to clean the fuel system of the Hiulx s it was really smoking and it did a great job.

Ive got the engine oil friction and heat reducer which you add to the oil and the MR2 turbo is due for its oil and filter change.

Theres nothing wrong with the MR2 engine and its really low mieage should i add the slick 50 or not or could it do more harm than good?

Has anyone had any experiance with slick 50 in there cars?

Any adivice is greatfully recieved

[scionic]

I can't see any way in which is could cause trouble, however I don't buy their claims. I suspect most of what's in that bottle is simply some rather unextraordinary synthetic lube. You could just run Mobil One through your engine and get better results.

The United States government has a branch that deals with erroneous claims by different manufacturers, among other things.

Here's what the Federal Trade Commission says about Slick50 and its manufacturers claims about their product.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1996/07/slick.htm

Long story short, Uncle Sam says they don't provide sufficient evidence to back up their claims, that just short of calling them a fraud. I would skip it. Use synthetic motor oil, that is the best thing you can do. Nothing else is needed. If you have an older/higher mileage car and/or don't want to spend for full synth, then get one of those blends of 50% dino and 50% synth.

[LORD_ED]

there are better ones out there than slick 50 bt if u got it u may as well use it

[reece]

slick 50?

NO

NO

NO

NO!

Oil change every 5k wil do

[Matthew_McNally]

Taken from an article by Fred Rau in ROAD RIDER magazine August 1992/Pg 15.

Currently, the most common and popular oil additives on the market are those that contain PTFE powders suspended in a regular, over-the-counter type, 50-rated petroleum or synthetic engine oil. PTFE is the common abbreviation used for Polytetrafloeraethylene, more commonly known by the trade name "Teflon," which is a registered trademark of the DuPont Chemical Corporation. Among those oil additives we have identified as containing PTFE are: Slick 50, Liquid Ring, Lubrilon, Microlon, Matrix, Petrolon (same company as Slick 50), QMl, and T-Plus (K-Mart). There are probably many more names in use on many more products using PTFE. We have found that oil additive makers like to market their products under a multitude of "private brand" names. While some of these products may contain other additives in addition to PTFE, all seem to rely on the PTFE as their primary active ingredient and all, without exception, do not list what other ingredients they may contain.

Though they have gained rather wide acceptance among the motoring public, oil additives containing PTFE have also garnered their share of critics among experts in the field of lubrication. By far the most damning testimonial against these products originally came from the DuPont Chemical Corporation, inventor of PTFE and holder of the patents and trademarks for Teflon. In a statement issued about ten years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said, "Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal combustion engines." At the time, DuPont threatened legal action against anyone who used the name "Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in an internal combustion engine, and refused to sell its PTFE powders to any one who intended to use them for such purposes. After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming DuPont could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont was forced to once again begin selling their PTFE to the additive producers.

The additive makers like to claim this is some kind of "proof' that their products work, when in fact it is nothing more than proof that the American legal ethic of "innocent until proven guilty" is still alive and well. The decision against DuPont involved what is called "restraint of trade." You can't refuse to sell a product to someone just because there is a possibility they might use it for a purpose other than what you intended it for. It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use of PTFE in engine oils remains carefully aloof and noncommittal, for obvious legal reasons. DuPont states that though they sell PTFE to oil additive producers, they have "no proof of the validity of the additive makers' claims." They further state that they have "no knowledge of any advantage gained through the use of PTFE in engine oil." Fear of potential lawsuits for possible misrepresentation of a product seem to run much higher among those with the most to lose.

After DuPont's decision and attempt to halt the use of PTFE in engine oils, several of the oil additive companies simply went elsewhere for their PTFE powders, such as purchasing them in other countries. In some cases, they disguise or hype their PTFE as being something different or special by listing it under one of their own trade names. That doesn't change the fact that it is still PTFE. In addition, there is some evidence that certain supplies of PTFE powders (from manufacturers other than DuPont) are of a cruder version than the original, made with larger sized flakes that are more likely to "settle out" in your oil or clog up your filters. One fairly good indication that a product contains this kind of PTFE is if the instructions for its use advise you to "shake well before using." It only stands to reason that if the manufacturer knows the solids in his product will settle to the bottom of a container while sitting on a shelf, the same thing is going to happen inside your engine when it is left idle for any period of time.

The problem with putting PTFE in your oil, as explained to us by several industry experts, is that PTFE is a solid. The additive makers claim this solid "coats" the moving parts in an engine (though that is far from being scientifically proven). Slick 50 is currently both the most aggressive advertiser and the most popular seller, with claims of over 14 million treatments sold. However, such solids seem even more inclined to coat non-moving parts, like oil passages and filters. After all, if it can build up under the pressures and friction exerted on a cylinder wall, then it stands to reason it should build up even better in places with low pressures and virtually no friction. This conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil additives containing PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center, which said in their report, "In the types of bearing surface contact we have looked at, we have seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen detrimental effect. The solids in the oil tend to accumulate at inlets and act as a dam, which simply blocks the oil from entering. Instead of helping, it is actually depriving parts of lubricant."

Remember, PTFE in oil additives is a suspended solid. Now think about why you have an oil filter on your engine. To remove suspended solids, right? Right. Therefore it would seem to follow that if your oil filter is doing its job, it will collect as much of the PTFE as possible, as quickly as possible. This can result in a clogged oil filter and decreased oil pres sure throughout your engine. In response to our inquiries about this sort of problem, several of the PTFE pushers responded that their particulates were of a sub-micron size, capable of passing through an ordinary oil filter unrestricted. This certainly sounds good, and may in some cases actually be true, but it makes little difference when you know the rest of the story. You see, PTFE has other qualities besides being a friction reducer: It expands radically when exposed to heat. So even if those particles are small enough to pass through your filter when you purchase them, they very well may not be when your engine reaches normal operating temperature. Here again, the scientific evidence seems to support this, as in tests conducted by researchers at the University of Utah Engineering Experiment Station involving Petrolon additive with PTFE. The Petrolon test report states, "There was a pressure drop across the oil filter resulting from possible clogging of small passageways."

In addition, oil analysis showed that iron contamination doubled after using the treatment, indicating that engine wear didn't go down - it appeared to shoot up. This particular report was paid for by Petrolon (marketers of Slick 50), and was not all bad news for their products. The tests, conducted on a Chevrolet six-cylinder automobile engine, showed that after treatment with the PTFE additive the test engine's friction was reduced by 13.1 percent. Also, output horsepower increased from 5.3 percent to 8.1 percent, and fuel economy improved from 11.8 percent under light load to 3.8 percent under heavy load. These are the kind of results an aggressive marketing company like Petrolon can really sink their teeth into. If we only reported the results in the last paragraph to you, you'd be inclined to think Slick 50 was indeed a magic engine elixir. What you have to keep in mind is that often times the benefits (like increased horse power and fuel economy) may be out weighed by some serious drawbacks...

I posted this whole article here

[Twincam.GTi]

reece Posted Today, 10:10 AM

  slick 50?

NO

NO

NO

NO!

Oil change every 5k wil do

Well said that person

With a good condition engine, frequent oil changes are all that is required.

With reference to 'things' added to engine I did many years ago used to use STP in clapped out Leyland Engines (when they used to burn oil real bad) and it used to stop the 'blue smoke' :D

[stevetubbyturbo]

Thanks everyone that articale is very intresting cheers Matthew

I think the the onlyl thing the Slick 50 will be going in will be the oil recycling vats at work.

Thanks

[reece]

So in a word (or two), Slick 50 clogs the arteries in the engine. Not good!

[oilman]

I wouldn't do it! Here is a chemists analysis of these type products.

General Remarks on Chlorinated Additives.

A number of ‘add-on’ additives intended to improve the performance of commercially available automotive lubricants have been marketed in recent years, under such names as ‘Xxtralube ZX-1’, ‘Metol FX-1’, ‘PPL Anti-Friction’ and ‘Activ-8’.All such products share the following characteristics with ‘X-1R Friction Eliminator’:-

1)They all contain chlorinated paraffin ‘exteme pressure’(EP) compounds first used in the 1930s in heavily-loaded industrial gearboxes, and in some automotive transmission applications, mainly hypoid gears.

2)They all corrode copper-based alloys at moderate temperatures, easily exceeded in all engine, and most transmission applications.This problem was recognised in the 1930s, and chlorinated compounds were never used in transmissions with bronze bearings or gears. No responsible manufacturer ever suggested using them in engines where their increasing activity at high temperatures could lead to piston ring corrosion and bore glazing. (For the same reason, modern ‘hypoid’ additives are not used in engines, even though they are much safer than any chlorinated additive.)

3)X-1R Friction Eliminator and its clones are based upon very outdated technology, which was abandoned by responsible lubricant manufacturers for automotive transmission uses in the 1950s. Chlorinated compounds still find applications in metal working, but their use is on the decline because of health and safety considerations.

4)When burnt, chlorinated paraffins produce corrosive hydrochloric acid, and organo-chlorine compounds including the highly poisonous phosgene gas. Apart from these corrosion and health hazards, with petrol engines the deactivation of exhaust catalysts is also a problem.

5)Unfortunately, these additives give spectacular results in simple EP test machines such as the ‘Falex’. As a marketing ploy, a demonstration of this type looks impressive to those not aquainted with the above facts. Also attractive is the low cost of chlorinated compounds, allowing profits of several thousand percent to be made.

Cheers

Simon