From: lim@addvax.llnl.gov (Doug Lim)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: Slick 50 Summary
Keywords: Slick 50, Oil Additives
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:29:00 GMT
Reply-To: DougLim@llnl.gov
Organization: LLNL
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


                  S L I C K    5 0   A N D   S I M I L A R
                      P R O D U C T S   S U M M A R Y

Thanks to all those who responed to my posting about Slick 50 and similar
types of products on the market! This appears to be quite a controversial
subject. The total tally was 10 votes for these types of products and
19 votes against them. I have tried to compile an objective summary of the
results, but you may find it useful in evaluating the summary to know that
I decided AGAINST use of any of these types of products.

For those who don't know what these products claim to do - they are basically
products that are occasionally added with your oil when you change oil,
once every 50,000 miles. The products supposedly coat your engine parts to
reduce the wear during cold starts.


ARGUMENTS FOR

- "Not only did slick 50 protect my engine, but I'm getting better gas mileage,
better acceleration, and more power overall from my engine."

>Rebutal: "The ONLY thing you will hear about Slick 50 are personal
testimonials, which are next to worthless."

- "The most amazing I've seen is one called Durabond.  I went up and talked to
the guys in Buffalo (who did the unrehearsed info-mercial in their
high-performance engine shop) and they swear up and down that the stuff is as
good as the info-mercial says it is."

- "I am using the engine and manual transmission formulas and have been pleased
with the results....The transmission version I tried first.  It got me easier
shifting, lower noise (maybe psychological) and at least 2mpg more in the
city...."

>Rebutal: [Another personal testimonial.]

- "i often put molybdenum disuplhide based ``molyslip'' into the engine and
gearbox when i change the oil.  that's not snake oil, so far as i can
see: it's a genuine lubricant."

>Rebutal: [Another personal testimonial.]

- "While I believe in placebo's (and I put Slick 50 in my truck and noticed
no difference.  I don't use it anymore) there is a product that I've
used that I do think works, and I don't think that it's the placebo
effect at work.

The product that I'm talking about is called "Engine Restore".  It's
not supposed to be like Slick 50, but it is supposed to reduce
emmisions (oil burning)...I added the Engine Restore, and after about a week,
the puff of oil smoke (and the smell of oil) was gone...I don't believe that
I'm imagining the effect, either you smell oil, or you don't."

>Rebutal: [Another personal testimonial.]

"Some similar products use moly sulfide instead of teflon, and
I once saved an engine having had the forsight to poor in a can :-)...

I doubt that would be the case with moly sulfide, but haven't ever seen a
report - what's in the major (Valvoline?) oil that's being touted on tv
these days - you know, the adv with dozens of stand-mounted engines, which
all expire except the one using the Right Stuff :-)"

- "My roommate is a mechanical engineer for Carrier Corp. and at the
Univeristy last year, the Mechanical group did some testing with Slick 50 and
were very impressed with the results.  What the results are, and whether or not
one person can notice a difference, I do not know.  I would assume the
friction losses were significantly less than using regular oil alone."

- "I put some in my 1981 Pontiac wagon with 130,000 miles.  I
had the problem of running extremely hot during the summer and burning oil so
bad that I had to change it every 800 miles using 20 w50 and oil additive and
adding 2 quarts of oil in the time between changes.  After I did add it, my
engine ran cooler and now I can go 1300 miles between oil changes and I don't
have to add any extra oil.  It also seems to have improved my gas efficiency
slightly."

>Rebutal: [Another personal testimonial.]


ARGUMENTS AGAINST

- "I know of 2 mechanics that swear by it, and one that swears that you should
not put it in your engine. To be honest, I would rather believe the one that
told me not to because he has a lot more knowledge, and much much more
experience than the other 2, but I talked to him after I had already
put it in."

>Rebutal: [Another personal testimonial.]

- "As a long time Car&Driver reader, I can tell you this is sort of
a FAQ in the magazine. I don't remember their exact reasoning
but C&D does not suggest the use of such products. It has to
do something with the fact that if these prodcuts lived up
to their claims, than a major oil company would have latched
onto it and they would be advertised up to the hilt."

>Rebutal:
"I have heard people respond to this by saying that this argument is similar
to one that says that high-efficiency engines must be a joke because if
they weren't, some car maker would latch onto them and advertise them to
the hilt...Seems to me that a major Oil Company would make more money
assuring that every 3 months you put 4 or more quarts of oil (at $1.50 a
quart or so) in your car than saying spend $30 (or whatever Slick 50 costs)
for a one-time protection for 50,000 miles :). One thing for sure, the
advertising for Slick 50 is very slick :)"


- "'Road Rider' magazine, a 'Consumer Reports' type of magazine for
motorcycles (product reviews, accepts no advertising) did an extensive
investigation of Slick 50 and its cousins.  Short answer:  do you
engine a favor, stay away from the stuff...Quoting from the "Road Rider"
article:

 The major oil companies are some of the richest, most powerful and
 aggressive corporations in the world.  They own multi-million dollar
 research facilities manned by some of the best chemical engineers money
 can hire.  It is probably safe to say that any one of them has the
 capabilities and resources at hand in marketing, distribution,
 advertising, research and product development to equal to 20 times that
 of any of the independant additive companies.  It therefore stands to
 reason that if any of these additive products were actually capable of
 improving the capabilities of engine lubricants, the major oil
 companies would have been able to determine that and to find some way
 to cash in on it.

 Yet of all the oil additives we found, none carried the name or
 endorsement of any of the major oil producers...

 In the case of oil additives, there is a considerable volume of
 evidence against their effectiveness.  This evidence comes from
 well-known and identifiable expert sources, including independent
 research laboratories, state universities, major engine manufacturers,
 and even NASA."

- Slick 50 contains powdered PTFE (polytetrafloeraethylene), more
commonly known as "Teflon," a trademark of DuPont Corp.  The theory is
that the teflon coats the metal parts in your engine, reducing wear
during start-up, before the oil has circulated through the engine.
That's the theory.  In reality, one of the favorite places the teflon
ends up coating is the inside of the oil passages, reducing their
diameter and restricting oil flow to the engine.  The result is oil
starvation and *excessive* wear of the metal in the engine, exactly the
opposite of what the addative claims to do!"

- "DuPont has claimed it is useless in engine oil.  Briggs & Stratton,
after a thorough, controlled, engineering analysis of Slick 50, found
that it caused excessive engine wear, compared to an identical engine
run with regular oil.  PTFE is freely available (ie, the makers of
Slick 50 cannot claim it is some "miracle new technology" they have
exclusive rights to), yet NO major oil manufacturers use it or
recommend its use as an addative.  NO major automobile, motorcycle, or
lawn mower motor manufacturer recommends its use (which, if it does
what it claims, should save them millions in warrantee repair work)."

- "Independant research laboratories, state universities, major engine
manufacturers, and NASA have concluded that at *best*, PTFE in engine
oil does no harm.  Slick 50's makers, while claiming to have extensive
test data from independant laboratories, refuse to release the data, or
even name the labs.  DuPont Corp., a multinational, billion dollar
chemical company, who invented the stuff,  and trademarked the name
"teflon" for PTFE, has concluded that it does no good in engine oil,
and tried to refuse to sell it to the makers of Slick 50, which a court
disallowed on "freedom of trade" grounds."

>Rebutal:
"I find this odd considering that I believe DuPont actually backs one of
this Telflon oil products... Is it T-Base ?
I'll have to check the next time I'm in a parts store..."

- "Briggs & Stratton took two identical engines off their assembly line,
and set them up for bench testing.  After break-in, one was run on
Slick 50, the other on straight motor oil for 20 hours.  They were both
shut down and the oil drained, then both were started up and run for
another 20 hours.  Both engines were then completely torn down and
inspected by the company's engineers.  Both suffered from scored
crankpin bearings, but the Slick 50 engine also suffered from heavy
cylinder bore damage that was NOT evident on the untreated engine!  The
engineers attributed this to oil starvation due to restricted oil flow
passages in the treated engine (the PTFE is *supposed* to adhere to the
metal, and it does... in the interior of oil passages, reducing their
diameter).  Once you block the passages, all future oil flow is
restricted."

>Rebutal:
"Wow! We've got data on two Briggs & Stratton engines that show severe
wear after only 20 hours of running on Slick 50. I expected
something of more statiscal significance from a man who takes his
laboratory data so seriously.

This Slick 50 scare...[if real]...would result in a multi-million dollar
class-action suit against its manufacturer."

- "The University of Nevada Desert Research Center, DuPont Chemical
Company, Avco Lycoming (aircraft engine manufacturers), North Dakota
State University, Briggs and Stratton, the University of Utah
Engineering Experimental Station, California State Polytechnic College,
and NASA's Lewis Research Center have ALL studied Slick 50, and NONE of
them have found ANY evidence of its effectiveness."

"Also, a good arguement is made for not mixing the stuff with oil that is
already carefully blended with additives, etc."

- '...By far the most damning testimonial against these products
originally came from the DuPont Chemical Corporation, inventor of PTFE and
holder of the patents and trademarks for Teflon.  In a statement issued
about ten years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division Product Specialist,
J.F. Imbalzano said, "Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in oil additives
or oils used for internal combustion engines."'

- "...Additive manufacturers will claim that they use "sub-micron" sized
  particles that will pass through your oil filter.  The only problem is
  that, "PTFE expands radically when exposed to heat."  So when your engine
  reaches normal operating temparatures, the particles may not longer pass
  through your filter, but instead will clog it!"

| | | |     +----------------------------------------+
| | | |     |      Doug Lim - DougLim@llnl.gov       |
| | | |__   | Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory |
| | |___/   |        Computer Scientist - ASD        |
\ \____/    |    (510) 423-6019 FAX: (510)423-2419   |
 \____/     +----------------------------------------+