Slick 50 - FROM THE BEGINNING?

"HLS" wrote in news:d1clp4$j91$ snipped-for-privacy@news.chatlink.com:

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).

Reply to
TeGGer®
Loading thread data ...

It's harmless snake-oil. A rippoff, but harmless.

Reply to
TCS

Daniel has always had that Unique way with words.

Daniel with words, Mike Tyson with Finances, Don King with Hair, Everyone has their weaknesses. Deep down, I'm sure his heart's in the right place.

Reply to
Some ga

It's that intangible thing called "experience".

Part of the reason Wal-Mart grows so fast is they stand behind the crap they sell. GM & Ford are doing poorly b/c they refuse to stand behind the decent quality stuff they make.

If Fleet Farm's policy is customer satisfaction ' might need to ask for a manager. If their policy is some form of receipt she might only need print out a bank/CC statement showing a purchase there in that price range.

Hence, ask here first, others might have prior experience / suggestions.

If you're really bothered Daniel, don't post !

Reply to
Some ga

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:

formatting link
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

Reply to
jc

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

Reply to
C. E. White

Respectfully, I don't believe that they were reprimanded for making false claims...they were reprimanded for making claims which they did not have the data to prove. There is a fine distinction.

Reply to
HLS

I did some testing on PTFE some years ago. I found that PTFE could be burnished into or onto the metal surface and it would leave an invisible film which conveyed fairly decent corrosion protection. I did not at that time test for lubrication effects.

Later we revisited the issue when we were looking for additives which would reduce the wear on oil well pump rods. Sucker rods run thousands of feet to the pump which is located near the completion zone. Since the well tubing is not straight (it deviates a few degrees from vertical in nearly every case, and may have convolutions) the pump rods can rub on the inside of the production tubing and wear each other out. In a series of Edisonian tests (we tested everything we could find) things like Slick 50 and MTM additive were tested. Both reduced friction when used in fairly high concentrations, but not to the extent that we could have used them commercially. (This would not be the case in a closed system like a crankcase.)

A commercial motor oil lubricant package was also tested (from a major oil company). It didn't do much either.

We did find a compound which reduced the friction dramatically even at small doses. Guess what! It was similar to materials used in motor oil additives packages, but of a somewhat different structure ---carried a lot of sulfur.

You have to really be careful when you try to test these things and extrapolate a few observations to a grand conclusion. Things are often not what they seem.

Reply to
HLS

Okay, I'll do it with the emoticon this time:

Will Fleet Farm accept a return on an unopened bottle of Slick 50 for store credit if I no longer have the receipt?

:)

See? It means I've decided to embrace the "Don't use it!" point of view that was the consensus here.

Reply to
Rebecca Webb

formatting link

Reply to
C. E. White

Slick 50 is a slick way to separate you from your money, but that is about all.

The best way to extend the life of an engine is to follow the manufacturers guidelines for oil weight and change oil more frequently the minimums contained in the owners manual.

Reply to
John S.

Not a slick 50 fan, but the ftc comment can be misleading. Advertisers will constantly push the limit, because they got smacked around doen't void the product. Example I saw some new blurb about listerine being forced to stop saying their mouthwash was healthy for your teeth like flossing. Not a reflection on the product, just how they were advertising it.

later,

tom @

formatting link

Reply to
The Real Tom

Good links, thanks!

later,

tom

Reply to
The Real Tom

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.