Duralube, slick50, lubegard

I had used duralube a number of years ago and had found it does improve on the mileage. Recently I had acquired 2 old clunker - one 28 year old and the other 12 year old. I have considered using duralube again but had found that FTC had fined them for misrepresentation. I had read the FTC report about the misrepresentation such as reduced wear etc. The conclusion drawn in the ad was based on the pin test but FTC claimed that engine wear was due to many other factors and not only friction. But this still does not make the test of reduced friction invalid.

My brief search on the internet revealed many information on duralube and the new additive lubegard. It was claimed by some technical people that slick50 used micronised ptfe and this could clog up small valves while duralube used a chlorinated parrafin which could oxidised to acidic vapour that will contribute to the wear and tear of the engine. Lubegard apparently do not have these two problems.

My question - Is there any problems that is associated to lubegard ? Has duralube improved on their formulation ?

TIA.

Reply to
Admin
Loading thread data ...

There is absolutely no reason to use any of those products.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

I use Valvoline.Any good name brand of engine oil is just as good, your choice. cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

Yes, you did, but no, you did not.

Reply to
do_not_spam_me

I used to use Castrol GTX with a Marvel Mystery oil chaser, 3.5 qts Castrol and 1 qt MMO. This worked fine for many years.

Until I bought a 1989 Mazda 626 a couple years ago. Developed and nasty clacking that has been attributed to Hydraulic Lash Adjusters. For 50 bucks I bought 4 HLAs and for a few dollars more I bought some Quaker State High Mileage oil with Slick 50 already mixed in.

For laughs I did an oil change with the QS as a last ditch, since i didn't want to go pulling the HLAs...

Brought the HLAs back, got my money back, and haven't bought another set yet. The oil cleared up the clacking problem on the first turn of the key.

Reply to
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B

This is news to me.. The high mileage oils use polymers for viscosity control and for gasket conditioning, but AFAIK it is not the micronized PTFE that has been the basis of Slick 50.

Mind you, I don't take the position that Slick 50 doesn't work for anything, but it has not been proven to me that it does (or doesn't).. And I believe that was the basis of the lawsuit...claims which had not been adequately verified.

In essence, that wormy "Doctor Doo" who pitches for colon cleansing on national TV is doing the same thing. He may believe it, but he hasn't proved it, does not look like a poster boy for clean colons, is making money off his contra medical pronouncements. Slick 50 did much the same with their ads.

Reply to
HLS

Well, it's entirely possible the effect was from the High Mileage Oil formulation and that the Slick 50 didn't have anything to do with it.

It seems to be a harmless placebo. That's more than you can say for the colon cleansing products on TV.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

It does, pretty much. If any of these products really worked well, they'd be using them for industrial machinery where the cost of repair is far higher than with a car and where products that can extend the life of bearing surfaces would pay for themselves even if they only extended the life by hours.

I don't think any of them do any harm, mind you, and you should feel free to use them if you think they will help you, but there's some pretty good research saying they don't.

The issue with the teflon powder is really not a serious one, but the teflon particles can be trapped by varnish and engine buildup and make the buildup problems worse. The Slick-50 propaganda says that somehow the teflon is supposed to impregnate surfaces but it doesn't really explain how. The solution for that is to keep your engine clean.

The chlorinated hydrocarbon issue is that the stuff forms hydrochloric acid. That's okay if you have proper pH buffering... in fact, most base oils will become very acidic after use in an engine, that's why we have additives to prevent that.

I don't think there are really any problems with any of these products when used in a clean engine, other than financial ones.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

___________________ They're like Daylight Saving Time: every virtue of the dad-gum thing has a vice!

LOL...

Reply to
ChrisCoaster
 That's more than you can say for the

___________________ Those commercials are really a pain in the a$$.

Reply to
ChrisCoaster

tv commercials,,, That's why I keep the MUTE button handy. cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

Teflon CAN and does impregnate or coat metal surfaces, but it is not clear that this effect leads to any real benefits in automobiles. I saw this effect in some tests that we were doing to measure corrosion on steel surfaces. That it occurs is documented (or at least documentable). The data resides in corporation archives.

But is it valuable?? I really dont know. We were not interested in this effect, as such, and never tried to run with it. I did some other tests years later in which the micronized PTFE was SUPPOSED to impregnate surfaces and give a high temperature high pressure lubricity effect. It gave a little performance, but was not good enough for what we were doing.

Other materials, sulfur rich organics, gave many many times the improvement that PTFE did, in this particular simulation.

Reply to
HLS

Amen!

Reply to
ben91932

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.