In addition, this product was supposed to increase horsepower and gas mileage. If all of this sounds like malarkey to you, the FTC would agree. The FTC issued a complaint that the ads for Slick 50, which claimed improved engine performance and reduced engine wear were deceptive. According to the FTC complaint, the claims that without Slick 50, auto engines generally have little or no protection from wear at start-up and therefore commonly experience premature engine failure caused by wear, were also false. In addition, the complaint alleged that the companies did not have adequate substantiation for their advertising claims that one treatment of Slick 50 continues to reduce wear for 50,000 miles and that it has been used in a significant number of U.S. Government vehicles.
Most automobile engines achieve adequate oil flow soon after start-up.
It is uncommon for automobile engines to experience premature failure caused by wear regardless of whether they are treated with Slick 50. Engine wear, including wear at or just after start-up, is insufficient to cause engine failure within the life of most automobiles, when owners use the grade and weight of motor oil recommended in their owner's manual and change the oil at recommended intervals. The FTC eventually announced an action against three Quaker State subsidiaries, settling the charges. The companies were barred from making any claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of any engine treatment, oil additive, or Slick 50 engine lubricant unless the companies which manufacture and market it possess and rely on competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the claims. In addition, the agreement prohibits the companies from claiming that any other Slick 50 motor vehicle lubricant reduces wear on a part, extends the part's life, lowers engine temperature, reduces toxic emissions, increases gas mileage or increases horsepower unless they can substantiate the claim.