Slick 50 - FROM THE BEGINNING?

Page 2 of 3  
Well, I used it in a couple of cars, they all lasted well, and I never saw any indication of problems of any kind. Maybe I was just lucky.
I had more problems with Pennzoil than with Slick 50.
BUT if the use of Slick 50 prejudices your warranty, I would not use it. Use good quality motor oil and change oil and filter regularly. Modern oils, whether synthetic or not, can do a really good job. I still have some 'unfavorite' brands of motor oil, mind you. I don't like oils which lead to varnishing and sludging, and some very well known brands are suspected of doing just that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which ones? Got names?
--
TeGGeR


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

Think he gave you one ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I avoid Pennzoil and Quaker State now. Quaker used to be a favorite of mine, but no longer. Castrol seems to do fine for me, as do a couple of others.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Castrol GTX 5W30 has been pretty much the only thing that's ever gone in my '91 Integra since the warranty ran out in '94.
The car's at 244,000 miles and is getting exactly 2,000 miles to the quart of oil (I know. I've checked).
--
TeGGeR


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HLS wrote:

Now that the Shell Oil Company owns the Pennzoil, Quaker State, and Slick 50 brand names will you change your opinion of those products, or decide to quit buying Shell products as well?
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because car technology changes.
--
--------------------------------------
"I'm a Slytherin, Potter," Malfoy reminded him.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rebecca Webb wrote:

Not as much as people think, and not always in the AREAS that people think. If you look at ring materials, cylinder wall materals, bearing materials, and the clearances that "modern" engines require in these ares, you'll find virtually no change since 1962 or so.
There have been HUGE changes in engine control, ignition, and fuel management since then (computer fuel injection and engine control systems, digital transmission controllers, etc.) but almost no fundamental changes in the "wear" parts of engines. About the biggest change in that area was the switch to roller cam followers, and that happened in the 80's. Hypereutectic pistons and "cracked cap" sintered connecting rods are examples of internal changes that have come on the scene in recent years, but the rods aren't metal-to-metal wear parts like the bearings and piston rings are, and HE pistons have the same basic wear characteristics and lubrication requirements as 1965 aluminum pistons for the most part.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott wrote:

Not "passages," but the microscopic irregularities in the metal surfaces, especially cylinder walls. A test (I think it was conducted by Briggs&Stratton since their engines are popular "demonstrators" with the snake-oil comapanies) showed that the PTFE fills the cylinder wall voids and prevents real lubricant (oil) from getting in there to do its job.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:20:24 -0800, "Scott" <homealone.com> wrote:

<snip>
Generally speaking, you're right, however in the instance of turbo chargers, there is the possibility, however slight, of those small oil passages being plugged up. While I've never seen any documentation of it, I have heard 2nd hand stories of this happening, especially in the VW groups. Admittedly these stories don't always hold up when put under actually close scrutiny, so I would suggest it might be taken with a grain of salt. At the same time, I'd also say why take the chance?
I contacted Briggs & Stratton a couple of years ago regarding a multi engine test they did using Slick 50 when it first came out (some of you may remember that was one of the Slick promo's, running a B&S engine with no oil after a Slick 50 treatment - it convinced me at the time and I used Slick 50 without incident for a long time). While they no longer have the actual test results, the bottom line was that Slick 50 did indeed harm the engines. Tear down of engines run without oil showed increased wear in Slick 50 treated engines.
I no longer have the email I got from them, it was lost in a crash a couple of years ago. Nor would I expect anyone to take my word for it, so you can individually contact Briggs at: http://www.briggsandstratton.com /
Email their tech help department and ask for information regarding the Slick 50 tests. That email, along with the Consumer Report articles, was an eye opener for me.
My personal bottom line now is quality synthetic oil and quality filters. I've had excellent results with that and until someone can document something better, that's my story and I'm sticking with it. Cheers, jc
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Rebecca Webb wrote:

Kee-ryste, here we go *again*. It is difficult to believe anybody gullible enough to fall for Slick-50's cheap pseudoscientific bullcrap is smart enough to keep breathing, but here we are.
There is no need to add Doctor MoJo's Motor Cream with Flex Fluoride and Vitamin-E and Teflon (or Slick-50, or ProLong, or Motor-Up, or any of the MANY other scam products on the market) to your engine. It will not "treat" anything. It will not help anything. It can very easily damage your engine by clogging small oil passages. Teflon belongs on the frying pans in your kitchen, NOT in your engine.

That's because he's seen your type of "I know better than trained tribologists and engineers" fools ruin their engines and bitch about it before.

The same was true 10 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 30 years ago.

You think you'll suffer engine part damage without Slick-50? Oh, my. You are a marketing psychologist's wettest possible dream.

WETTEST possible dream.

I would say it's never too late to stop being a willfully-ignorant, paranoid, superstitious, manipulated fool, but it would seem you've bought another Ford, so I may be wrong on that point. You can be *less* of a fool by not pouring worthless and potentially harmful gunk into your engine.
Geeze, *GROW* a brain, then think about the claims they make for a bare fifteen seconds, and you can figure this out all by yourself.
DS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

People still fall for that Tornado gas saving device crap. Including some smart people. Then they get the Tornado, drive more carefully, and notice their gas milage goes up on the next fill-up. But, they didn't notice they were on a hill so that the tank wasn't as full and they were on a hill the other way on the previous fill-up, so the tank is really fill.

No true. It will treat the makers of that stuff to some of your hard earned money.

I read in the New York Times that they are putting it in paint, so you can't do graffitti.
But, it doesn't belong in an engine.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:49:23 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@mrs.umn.edu (Rebecca Webb) wrote:

You did approx 126K in 3 years on your Contour if I'm reading this correctly. So.... your car tends not to do a lot of stone cold for weeks dry starting (I'd imagine), You're also swapping your car after 3 years... If you're worried about longevity, talk to the taxi mechanics or police mechanics or bus/truck mechanics. I think you might be surprised at how few use Slick 50, or any other additive.
IF you want to use it, go ahead. The amount of driving you do will mean that the engine will plug up & puke out after you've traded it in on something else.
Another approach is to talk to everyone you know who drives a car and ask each of them how often they personally have had, not they know someone who know's someone who's had an engine fail, but someone who's actually had their own engine fail due to oil starvation issues.
I've changed oil on a Ford F150 Pickup that hadn't had it's oil changed for 40K. It had conventional oil. Inline 6, Fram filter. Black, tar oil from the pan, filter base silted up 1/2 way.
It was driven the wreckers years later with a rotten body and nearly 200,000 on the clock. No oil additives ever.
Give your engine 30 seconds warm up each time you start it cold & you'll be fine, or.... add Slick 50, give it 30 seconds warm up each time you start it cold & change your oil & vehicle often & you'll be fine.
Either way you should be ok. Modern cars are pretty rugged & cheap to replace, go with what gives YOU peace of mind.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rebecca Webb wrote:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/1997/12/bluecora.do.htm http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/s50com.html http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbibles/index.html?menu.html&additives.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Question #2.
Will Fleet Farm accept a return on an unopened bottle of Slick 50 for store credit if I no longer have the receipt?
Maybe there's another use for it. Not a lot of graffiti around here...
Thanks, all.
Except you, Daniel. No call for that attitude. I wouldn't abuse you if you made inquiry in one of MY areas of expertise because you wanted to make wise choices.
RW
--
--------------------------------------
"I'm a Slytherin, Potter," Malfoy reminded him.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Rebecca Webb wrote:

Fail to think for yourself, ask a stupid question, and some responders will have no qualms about calling you thoughtless and calling it a stupid question. That's life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Rebecca Webb wrote:

Another stupid question. Why are you asking us? Pick up a phone or go to Fleet Farm and go ask them!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Emoticon-dependent, are we?
--
--------------------------------------
"I'm a Slytherin, Potter," Malfoy reminded him.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I agree, there is no call for that sort of response. You probably should do some research at the links mentioned, read them carefully, and see what you can pick up.
For a long time the Slick 50 product was panned by a lot of people who 'had heard', or 'believed', or 'imagined' it to be either trash or treasure.
The original lawsuit, I believe, had nothing to do with damaged engines nor was it about the ability of the product to perform or not. It was that Slick 50 made wildly optimistic advertising claims that, when they were asked to document them, they could not prove. They had not done the homework they claimed they had. Maybe the product worked, and maybe it didn't, but they had broached some serious truth in advertising rules.
I have heard a lot of anecdotal commentary about Slick 50 plugging filters, plugging engines, fouling engines, etc but I have never yet seen proof positive of this...just opinions, old wive's tales.
It is very possible that some engines have failed into which Slick 50 was used as a last ditch measure, and that the ultimate failure was blamed, rightly or not, on Slick 50.
It might be bad stuff. I really don't know. I have used it, as I said before, with never a hint of a problem.
Don't let people dog you. Your question was a fair one, and it is a shame that you have been treated so shabbily. Unfortunately, I doubt that anyone here has the total truth about this product....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rebecca Webb wrote:

Don't get a bad opinion of Dan's advice because he's crusty, its very accurate.
And as I tell my daughter: YES, there IS such a thing as a stupid question :-p If you're new to automotive things, then I don't consider the Slick 50 question to be in that category simply because you gotta learn sometime. But the Fleet Farm question is pretty far out there....
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.