Who was it who mentioned Fram oil filters and dropping oil pressure?

Page 11 of 16  
Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:


Meh?
I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of the Slick 50. Never used it; but it seems awful hokey.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:00:01 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

Hey! It's got PTFE, the 'slipperiest substance known to man'. That's gotta be worth something.
I tried Slick 50 a couple times, but I usually don't add it more than once every 4th or 5th oil change, on cars with old engines. Won't put it in my Scion for at least 15 years!
Here's how I got started. I have an '89 Mazda 626 with Hydraulic Lash Adjusters. After I had the car for a few months, it started making this horrible clacking noise. That's when I found out about the HLAs and found a web site describing how to replace them. I had tried Castrol GTX, the oil I have been using for 30 years, and tried Marvel Mystery oil, hoping to free it up and 'fill' it with a lighter grade oil, both to no avail. I was due for an oil change, so I went to AutoZone, they had the HLAs in stock, $55 for four. The engine takes 12. I'll look for the collapsed one and replace it. Then I saw the QS with Slick 50, so I picked up 4 quarts. Can't hurt.
I changed the oil, disconnected the coil (I like cars with a single coil just for this reason...), cranked the starter a few times until the OIL light went off, connected the coil, fired it up and...NO MORE CLACKING!
I held onto the HLAs for a few more days and then returned them, and haven't thought about replacing them since....they just don't clack any more!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:
<snip>

Avoid Slick 50 at all costs. It's very bad for your engine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SMS wrote:

Care to document that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the FTC and Slick 50
In 1997, three subsidiaries of Quaker State Corp. (the makers of Slick 50) settled Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for Quaker State's Slick 50 Engine Treatment were false and unsubstantiated. According to the FTC complaint, claims such as the following made in Slick 50 ads falsely represented that without Slick 50, auto engines generally have little or no protection from wear at start-up and commonly experience premature failure caused by wear:
"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."
"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."
In fact, the FTC said, "most automobile engines are adequately protected from wear at start-up when they use motor oil as recommended in the owner's manual. Moreover, it is uncommon for engines to experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they have been treated with Slick 50 or not."
http://www.skepdic.com/slick50.html
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1996/07/slick.shtm
Guess you guys have been under a rock for the past 15 years or so?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard wrote:

<snip>
All true, but all that goes only to the fact that these additives do nothing good for your engine. It doesn't address the harm it can do by virtue of the the teflon particles.
Bottom line, avoid these additives at all costs. I was actually amazed to see that they are still on the market at all after all the problems they had with the FTC. I guess it proves the old adage, "it's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The feds didnt say that the product didnt work. They said that Slick 50 was making claims they they could not substantiate. Not false claims, but unsubstantiated claims. There IS a difference.
I have seen no hard data that shows conclusively that Slick 50 does anything worthwhile.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hls wrote:

That is not the way I heard it. All the testing that I have read does show that slick 50 reduces engine friction. That means you can get better gas mileage (something like 3% better IIRC). The problem is that all the long term testing done on slick 50 also showed that it reduces engine life. That is a paradox that is not completely understood (there are plenty of theories). Some of the testing showed that using slick 50 can shorten the life of an engine by as much as half.     The advertising for slick 50 either implied or directly stated that the reduced friction would result in less wear and therefore longer engine life, but that conclusion was a pure leap of faith that wasn't ever supported by any evidence.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:4b180eec$0$1589

http://www.skepdic.com/slick50.html http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/07/slick.shtm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Heron McKeister wrote:

Quaker state still markets it. Their current claim appears to be:
"reconditions engine parts and gives your engine staying power, keeping your engine performing at it best"
This thread started by raising the question "is an oil pressure problem due to Fram oil filter?". Later on it was revealed the ownwr of the engine was also getting regular slick 50 wallet flushes. But of course that has nothing to do with the oil pressure issue.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:4b180eec$0$1589

I dont doubt that it might show some friction reduction. It WILL burnish into metal surfaces, of that I am positive. But I have seen no data at this point that would convince me that it is either a good or a bad product.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

temperatures dropped 15 degrees or something like that and idle speed increased something like 25 percent - indicating reduced engine friction.
I tried it in one of my vehicles and found absolutely no improvement in operation - no reduction in (minimal) oil consumption, no reduction in fuel consumption, no reduction in operating temperatures (but it was a 3.0 liter Aerostar - even with a good thermostat it needed a "winter cover" to get any heat in the winter).
DuPont says do NOT put teflon (they are the manufacturer) into an engine - and there have been reports of it (the teflon) being caught in oil filters, restricting oil flow, so I choose not to ever use it again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think when my daughter had her old Nissan, her mechanic put some shims behind the spring in the oil pressure relief valve and increased her oil pressure somewhat. Dunno how practical that trick would be for you - just a thought.
Carl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I can't imagine why this would be useful unless there was a problem with the oil pressure relief valve.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sometimes the OPRV loses tension and the oil pressure drops. I have seen Ford mechanics pull out the spring, stretch it,and reinstall on the old 390/428 engines. That would often bring the oil pressure back up to spec.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
1 Lucky Texan wrote:

That would be practical only when it increases the oil pressure. If the reason an engine has low oil pressure is a weak spring in the oil pressure relief valve that is certainly something that should be addressed. Fixing a mechanical problem will always get you farther than resorting to superstitious beliefs.
    Typically if the oil pressure is low in an old engine changing the spring isn't going to help because if the engine can't develop enough pressure to open the regulator valve then increasing the spring tension isn't going to affect the oil pressure.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:53:26 -0600, jim wrote:

One company making a better oil filter than another is not a 'superstitious belief'. Gonna tell me Chevys are as high quality as Toyotas now?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

If you use any brand oil filter and follow the maintenance recommendations of the engine manufacturer it is extremely unlikely that the engine will fail in any way before you reach that point where you are no longer willing to keep the rest of the car running. So the question of whether one filter may be better than another is completely moot except to idiots who hold superstitious beliefs.
    In the long run insisting on one brand filter over another is going to have just as much effect as performing ritualistic dances and mumbling voodoo incantations in an attempt to extend the life of an engine.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim wrote:

It's best to avoid brands of filters that are known to be so poorly constructed that they have a history of failing catastrophically. It really doesn't cost more than a trifling amount of money to use a decent filter, especially if you plan ahead. I.e. I stock up on Toyota filters when there's a $3.99 coupon from the dealer (which includes a drain plug gasket as part of the deal, bringing the net cost of the filter to $2.99 since a drain plug gasket usually sells for $1 (must be the highest margin part sold by dealers and auto parts stores).
Sure the odds are that even with a poor quality filter you'll get lucky and not be one of the ones who has one fall apart, but why take the chance when there's no real monetary savings in doing so?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SMS wrote:

All the filters on the market have about the same history for catastrophic failures. One brand may have a large number people who share a belief in imagined failures. Look up what the American Psychiatric Association has to say about "mass hysteria". I believe that organization is also peddling medications that they say will provide a cure for this condition.

What about someone who doesn't have a Toyota?

Is it a matter of faith? If you believe then the filter won't fall apart? Or maybe voodoo witch doctors cast bad spells on some engines if one doesn't follow the true believers.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.