I used to see slick 50 and Dura Lube commercials all the time about 5 years ago - not any more. I remember once reading here somewhere that hose products are bad for your engine. What's the deal.? I have a new rebuilt engine with 500 miles and was thinking on adding Slick50 for protection. Thanks.

 

Dont add slick 50! It has PTFE particles in it that have been shown over and over to clog up oil filters and oil pump pickup screens and cause costly engine failures.If you want protection for that rebuilt engine,just use a good name brand petroleum motor oil like Chevron,Valvoline,Shell etc. and a good oil filter like Purolator and change the oil regularly.That will give you all the protection you need.Once the engine has sufficiently broken in after say 5000 miles you might consider synthetic oil like Mobil 1,but forget the additives they dont work.

 

I believe Pensoil/Quacker State now owns Slick50. That kind of gives you an idea what kind of stuff it is....

 

Briggs and Stratton engines, you know lawn mowers... did a big test a few years back. They took something like 100 engines off the line and did half with oil half with Slick 50, broke the engines in and then drained the oil and let them run.

The Slick 50 engines all siezed up fairly quickly. The plain oil engines did just fine, I don't think any siezed.

Dupont, the maker of PTFE tried to legally force Slick50 from claiming that PTFE was good for engines, but due to our legal system, they were prevented from harming Slick 50s business. Dupont said their product was never meant to be used in oil. If the company who make a product and stands to make money from others adding it to new markets, tells us it is bad, I will trust their opinion.

Somewhere on this website and many others is an article called Snake Oil... it tells about Slick 50 and others. The bottom line is that at best, these aditives don't help anything. But in many cases they actually increase wear and tear.

I have used Slick 50 and other products, but never was able to detect any noticable difference, and I DO keep good records on my engines. I will say I never saw any damage either, but I use synthteic oils so that would probably prevent the problems known from additives like Slick 50. Besides, it takes a long time in normal use to wear out an engine, even if abused. So how would a normal user ever know if a product destroyed his engine. This is probably why you see so many warranties that "this product won't hurt your engine", can't be proven in normal use.

I no longer use any snake oils, but every once in awhile I do get tempted.

Just my opinions based on reading.

Jim Henderson

 

5000 miles to break in? - OK.
I already changed oil at 500 miles and now I won't add any additives. Thanks for the replies.

 

>I used to see slick 50 and Dura Lube commercials all the
>time about 5 years ago - not any more. I remember once
>reading here somewhere that hose products are bad for your
>engine. What's the deal.? I have a new rebuilt engine with
>500 miles and was thinking on adding Slick50 for protection.
>Thanks.


The info below is taken directly from the FTC website. You can find it by doing a search through google.com under slick 50.

QUAKER STATE ADS FOR SLICK 50
ARE FALSE AND MISLEADING, FTC CHARGES

The Federal Trade Commission has charged Quaker State - Slick 50, Inc., the manufacturer of Slick 50, the best-selling auto engine treatment in the U.S., with making false and unsubstantiated advertising claims. According to the FTC, ads for Slick 50 that tout tests showing improved engine performance are false and its claims of reduced engine wear are unsubstantiated.

Quaker State - Slick 50 is based in Houston, Texas. Since its 1978 introduction, Slick 50 has attracted about 30 million users world-wide. Slick 50 retails for about $18 a quart, and the company claims to have about 60% of the engine treatment market.

"Slick 50's ads claim that compared to motor oil alone, it reduces engine wear, lengthens engine life, and provides a host of other benefits. The claims sound good, but the evidence doesn't back them up,” said Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We believe the ads exaggerate the lack of protection motor oils provide modern engines at start-up, as well as the risk of premature engine failure. The premature engine failure Slick 50 claims to guard against is uncommon, and the company lacks reliable evidence it would be prevented by using Slick 50, in any case," she said. "In fact, all the evidence we've seen so far suggests that the best thing you can do for your car’s engine is to get an oil change performed at manufacturer recommended intervals," she said. "People who want to maximize their automobile performance and enhance its long life should read the owner's manual and follow the directions.”

Slick 50 is the most recent in a series of FTC cases challenging allegedly deceptive ad claims for oil additives or high octane fuel. “Last year, STP Corporation and its parent corporation, First Brands, paid an $888,000 civil penalty to settle FTC charges that they were making false and unsubstantiated claims for their engine treatment," Bernstein said.

According to the FTC complaint detailing the charges in this case, Slick 50 aired television and radio commercials and published brochures carrying claims such as:

"Every time you cold start your car without Slick 50 protection, metal grinds against metal in your engine...
" With each turn of the ignition you do unseen damage, because at cold start- up most of the oil is down in the pan. But Slick 50's unique chemistry bonds to engine parts. It reduces wear up to 50% for 50, 000 miles," and;
"What makes Slick 50 Automotive Engine Formula different is an advanced chemical support package designed to bond a specially activated PTFE to the metal in your engine. "
According to the FTC, these claims and others falsely represented that auto engines generally have little or no protection from wear without Slick 50. It is uncommon, however, for engines to experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they are treated with Slick 50 or not. Finally, the FTC alleges that Slick 50 neither coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE nor meets military specifications for motor oil additives.

The FTC complaint also specifically charges that Slick 50 did not have adequate substantiation for its advertising claims that, compared to motor oil alone, the product:

reduces engine wear;
reduces engine wear by more than 50%;
reduces engine wear by up to 50%;
reduces engine wear at start-up;
extends the duration of engine life;
lowers engine temperatures;
reduces toxic emissions;
increases gas mileage; and
increases horsepower.
The complaint also alleges that the company did not have adequate substantiation for its advertising claims that one treatment of Slick 50 continues to reduce wear for 50,000 miles and that it has been used in a significant number of U.S. government vehicles.

Finally, the complaint challenges ads stating that “tests prove” the engine wear claims made by Slick 50. In fact, according to the FTC complaint, tests do not prove that Slick 50 reduces engine wear at start up, or by 50%, or that one treatment reduces engine wear for 50,000 miles.

The order the FTC is seeking would prohibit misrepresentations about the benefits of using Slick 50 and require that ad claims be backed by competent and reliable evidence. In addition, if the facts are found as alleged, and issuance of a cease and desist order alone is inadequate to protect consumers, the Commission may require corrective advertising or other affirmative disclosures. It may also apply to a federal court to obtain restitution for consumers.

The complaint also names three subsidiaries: Slick 50 Management, Inc., Slick 50 Products Corp., and Slick 50 Corp.

The Commission vote to issue the complaint was 5-0.

NOTE: The Commission issues a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of a complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has violated the law. The complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be ruled upon after a formal hearing.

Copies of the complaint and an FTC brochure, "Penny Wise or Pump Fuelish" are available from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202- 326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 1-866-653-4261. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710. FTC news releases and other materials also are available on the Internet at the FTC's World Wide Web site at: http.//www.ftc.gov

 

>I used to see slick 50 and Dura Lube commercials all the
>time about 5 years ago - not any more. I remember once
>reading here somewhere that hose products are bad for your
>engine. What's the deal.? I have a new rebuilt engine with
>500 miles and was thinking on adding Slick50 for protection.
>Thanks.

This is info from the FTC about a similiar product called ZMAX. This indicates that using ZMAX actually enhances corrosion.

For Release: February 1, 2001
FTC Sues Speedway Motorsports and Oil-Chem Subsidiary

Performance Claims For zMax Auto Additives Are Unsubstantiated, FTC Charges

The Federal Trade Commission has filed suit in U. S. District Court seeking to halt false and misleading advertising for zMax auto additives and has asked the court to order refunds to consumers who bought the products. The agency alleges that enhanced performance claims for the product are unsubstantiated, that tests cited to support performance claims actually demonstrated that motor oil treated with zMax produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion than motor oil alone, and that the three different products - an engine additive, a fuel line additive and a transmission additive - were all actually tinted mineral oil. zMax is manufactured by Oil-Chem, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. Speedway, based in Concord, North Carolina, operates NASCAR race tracks in the South and in California, in addition to marketing the zMax products.

According to the FTC complaint, since at least May 1999, zMax ran infomercials touting its "Power System," a $39 package of three additives to be used in the engine, fuel line and transmission of automobiles. The infomercials feature testimonials from consumers and race car drivers making claims such as, "I was averaging about 22 miles to the gallon on the highway. I installed the zMax and so I jumped right up to about 28 miles per gallon;" and "zMax guarantees a minimum of 10 percent gas mileage increase." Other marketing and promotional pieces claim, "zMax with LinKite has the scientific, CRC L38 proof it takes your car to the MAX!" and "Why zMAX Works - Cuts carbon build-up on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on piston skirts 60%; Reduces blow-by leakage 17.7%; Increases combustion efficiency 9.25%; Lowers fuel consumption 8.5% - Results of an independent CRC L38 test."

According to the FTC, the CRC L38 test is a standard auto industry tool to measure the bearing corrosion protection properties of motor oils. In February/March 1997, an independent laboratory performed two CRC L38 tests of zMax for Speedway and Oil Chem. In those tests, motor oil treated with zMax produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion as motor oil alone. The complaint also states that the defendants fabricated one "report" from the two test reports, eliminating the bearing corrosion results and all other negative test results, and then used that report and the "official laboratory results" - similarly edited to remove detrimental data results - as sales tools in the infomercial and on the zMax Web site.

The FTC's complaint alleges that the defendants did not possess and rely on reasonable substantiation for the following claims in the infomercial, on the Web site and in brochures that zMax:

increases gas mileage;
increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10%
reduces engine wear;
reduces or eliminates engine wear at startup;
reduces engine corrosion;
extends engine life; and
reduces emissions.
The agency's complaint also alleges that the defendants falsely represent that the results of the CRC L38 test proved that zMax:

increases gas mileage;
reduces engine wear;
extends engine life;
lowers fuel consumption by 8.5%
lowers wear on valve stems by 66%
lowers wear on piston skirts by 60%; and
cuts carbon build-up on valve stems by 66%.
Finally, the FTC charges that in consumer testimonials and endorsements in their advertising, the defendants did not have substantiation for the representation that the endorsers' experiences were, "The actual and current opinions, findings, beliefs, and/or experiences of those consumers; and the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use the product."

The FTC is asking the court to bar the defendants from violating the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive acts and to order consumer redress or require that they give up their ill-gotten gains.

This case is the latest in a series of FTC law-enforcement initiatives targeting unsubstantiated claims made by auto additive manufacturers. The FTC previously halted allegedly deceptive advertising by the marketers of Dura Lube, Motor Up, Prolong, Valvoline, Slick 50, and STP, other major brands of engine treatment products.

The Commission vote to file the complaint was 5-0. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, in Greensboro, January 31, 2001.

 

Don't get fancy. If you took a poll, it would probably show that 90 % of people use plain old oil.Use what the manufacturer says and don't go more than 6 months or 5000 miles between oil changes.