Does slick 50 work?
#1
06-25-2004, 02:51 AM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does slick 50 work?
Hi all. I was just reading the posts about the types of oil you guys use, And always wondered about slick 50. Any thoughts?
#2
06-25-2004, 03:10 AM
RE: Does slick 50 work?
No it doesn't! The only additives that I would even consider putting in my engine are Lube Control www.lubecontrol.com, and Auto-RX www.Auto-rx.com.
My oil of choice is in my sig line.
Aftermarket Lube Additives: An Industry’s Shame
By David McFall
Tucked into a musty corner of the massive petroleum industry, sheltered by the indifference of oil marketers, auto makers, retailers and the American Petroleum Institute, is the $150 million aftermarket lube additive market – a virtual plague of engine oil additives, supplemental additives, oil treatments and engine treatments.
Question One: What real benefits does this “mouse milk” (to use the oil industry’s own snickering phrase) provide?
The Answer: None, nada zip, zero.
Question Two: Do ALAs cause any harm?
The Answer: To engines, some probably do. To consumers and their wallets, yes. And to the environment, a resounding yes.
Shelves of the Northern Virginia Pep Boys store sport bottles of Shell oil’s newly acquired Slick 50 engine treatment, Valvoline’s SynPower Oil Treatment, STP Oil Treatment, the ubiquitous Prolong and the latest Federal Trade Commission target, zMax.
Also in this dubious assembly is the low-price entry, Proline Oil Treatment – only 99 cents per oil change, for which you’ll get your “noisy engine quieted, a reduction in oil burning and increased compression.”
Finally, there’s the real howler, Marvel Mystery oil, from USA Hardware in Minneapolis, at $1.99 an oil change. It will “combat internal motor rust and corrosion, lubricate valves, piston rings and upper cylinder and eliminate valve sticking, keep rings free and reduce piston and cylinder wear, retard formation of power dissipating motor deposits such as gum, varnish and sludge and will neutralize acid formation and improve viscosity index.”
q In its owner’s manual, Ford Motor Co. recommends against the use of aftermarket lubricant additives (ALAs) for engines, transmissions, transaxles, etc. For example, the engine oil section in the 2003 Ranger pickup’s manual states twice, for emphasis, on the same page, “Do not use supplemental engine oil additives, cleaners or other engine treatments. They are unnecessary and could lead to engine damage that is not covered by Ford warranty.”
q “Don’t add anything to you oil.” – 1998 Buick Regal owner’s manual
q “Do not add any material (other than leak detection dyes) to engine oil. Engine oil is an engineered product and its performance may be impaired by supplemental additives.” – 2003 DaimlerChrysler owner’s manual
q “Using supplemental additives is generally unnecessary and can even be harmful (emphasis added). One should never use an additive to fix a mechanical problem.” – Detroit Diesel bulletin several years ago
q “ExxonMobil does not recommend (additive supplements and/or engine treatments).” – Mobil 1 website
Du-uhh, isn’t that what motor oil does? The real mystery sis why anyone would buy this product or reputable stores would stock it.
Not yet on the Pep Boys shelf, but just off stage is another “truly revolutionary new technology.” LuBoron Advanced Lubrication Technology was, according to it promotional literature, developed by the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratories; its “fully degradable products literally change the surface characteristics of all metals…” and “reduce friction up to a staggering 80 percent, reduce wear up to 90 percent, and reduce internally generated friction heat by 40 percent to 50 percent. These dramatic claims are fully documented.”
LuBoron declined to respond to the issue of OEM concern over log term engine durability (or any other issue, for that matter) or possible harm from using aftermarket additives such as LuBoron product.
In The Government’s Sights – Beginning about a decade ago the Federal Trade Commission mounted a long-term attack on false, misleading and unsubstantiated performance claims made by manufacturers of ALAs.
Such claims are at the center of all the FTC suits over these products. When companies settle a suit they agree to stop making false and misleading claims, and in many cases pay a fine or a civil penalty.
Three of the more famous ALA manufacturers got nailed by the FTC in the late 1990s. In 2000, Dura Lube settled and paid a 2 million dollar fine, and Motor Up settled, too, after agreeing not to make claims it could it could not scientifically support, and not to misrepresent tests, studies or data on its product’s performance. In 1999, Prolong settled without a fine, also agreeing not to make unsupported claims. Earlier, in 1995, First Brands paid a $888,000 fine settle what the FTC said were misleading claims for STP Oil Treatment. Each of these companies continues to market ALAs.
Also, Quaker State (now part of Shell Oil) agreed to make at least $10 million in consumer redress, over allegedly deceptive advertising for Slick 50. And Ashland Inc., Valvoline’s parent company, settled without a fine in 1997 on TM8, a PTFE-containing ALA it no longer markets (although it has others on the retail shelves).
The FTC has only one active ALA case currently. Two years ago it brought suit against Speedway Motorsports Inc. (which owns and operates six NASCAR race tracks), alleging that the company used “false and misleading advertising for zMax auto additives.” ZMax is a product of Oil Chem Research Corp., a wholly owned Speedway subsidiary. The suit was based on 1997 data from two L-38 engine tests, which measures bearing corrosion.
These two tests, according to the FTC’s initial complaint, “actually demonstrated that motor oil treated with zMax produced more then twice as much bearing corrosion that motor oil alone.” The FTC complaint also charged Speedway and Oil-Chem with fabricating “one â€report’ from the two test reports, eliminating the bearing corrosion results and all other negative test results, and then used that report and the â€official’ laboratory results - similarly edited to remove detrimental data results – as sales tools.”
At press time, Lubes’n’Greases learned that the FTC has withdrawn the suit from litigation and that the parties had reached a settlement. Details of the agreement were unavailable from FTC staff, however, until a judge finalized it.
In the interim, Oil-Chem Research blusters that it will be vindicated, thanks to a barrage of testing data it supplied. The FTC’s experts witnesses, it says, “were unsuccessful to discredit the completed tests where zMax had been shown a reduce friction, increase horsepower, dissipate engine heat, improve fuel economy, extend engine life, etc. Had the witnesses been able to discredit the accumulated testing, zMax would most certain have gone the same route of Prolong, Slick 50, Motor Up and the rest.”
It’s likely, however, that zMax may be enjoined from hanging a percentage on its fuel economy claim, one observer said. (That is, “increases gas mileage: would be OK; “Increases gas mileage by 5-13 percent,” as it now claims, would be verboten.)
“Not An Additive”- Throughout the case, Speedway Motorsports vigorously disputed the FTC charge. Speedway’s consultant, Mario LePera, formally with the U.S. Army’s Mobility Technology Center at Ft. Belvior, Va., noted, “The L-38 tests which the FTC relied on were run on oils formulated for aircraft piston engines (i.e. meeting SAEJ1899) and that although the test showed increased bearing corrosion, it did not exceed the specifications limits for that product.”
LePera presented Lubes’n’Greases with a list of six additional L-38 (now renamed the Sequence VIII) engine tests, which were conducted on zMax between November 2001 and January 2003. These were so called A/B testes, where the tests runs first with engine oil alone, then with zMax added. The oil used differed each time but one, as did the treat rate with the zMax. Some results are widely impressive, others impressively wild. Bearing weight loss might go down 73.8 percent – or up 8 percent, for example. Blow bycould increase 1.1 percent, or drop 3.5 percent. But since every test is on different viscosity oil, or at a different treat rate, how to compare them? And why the differing treat rates anyway? Cant Oil-Chem settle on the right one for these oils? The tests also don’t speak to Max’s long-term effect on engine durability.
“In every case, there were no increases in bearing corrosion,” LePera said, adding, “all of the test, using wither SJ or SL quality oils, were done in Oil-Chem’s lab, by Oil-Chem employees in stands calibrated according to ASTM D6709.” (The stands had not been referenced by the Test Monitoring Center, as is done with independent engine test labs.)
If engine oils want to claim fuel economy benefits, they must perform the difficult, expensive and finicky Sequence VIB test. Should zMax be allowed to claim fuel economy enhancements based on various oils and treat levels in the L-38/Sequence VIII? (That’s a question the FTC asked, too. It’ll be interesting to hear what the judge says.)
However, Ed Rachanski Sr., Oil-Chem Research’s director, and LePera say there are a number of other tests – vehicle field tests, engine dynamometer tests and lab bench tests – Which they say, “certainly prove zMax to provide beneficial effects. Further, to subject zMax to the laboratory and engine dynamometer testing required for PI SL/GF-3 would be inappropriate as it is neither an engine oil nor an additive system.” See, zMax is “not an automotive engine oil or an engine additive that is required to pass API/SAE/ILSAC specifications and undergo the certification process,” the two reiterate. “zMax by both public and industry concepts is not an additive.” Rather, it “is in a unique field of its own, as it treats the metal and not the engine oil.”
Got that? They can test it, you can’t.
Inside The Box – how is zMax used? Take a look at its marketing program and product packaging. Which bears its full title, “zMax Micro-Lubricant Power System,” selling for $41.77. First zMax promises to “increase gas mileage by 5-13 percent, soak into metal and protect the engine form inside out, restore power and improve performance, reduce wear and friction, lengthen engine life, prevent blow by and reduce carbon formation, reduce emissions, protect vital engine parts and is capable of lowering the coefficient of friction between two sliding metal surfaces.”
Lots of other claims, too, but you get the idea. NASCAR legend A.J. Foyt plans to use it “for the rest of my life.”
The Slick packaging includes an API-like “star burst” promising an “iron clad 150,000 mile no-non-sense GUARANTEE, when properly used every six thousand miles or every six months which ever comes first.” Another GUARANTEE: “Better fuel mileage or your money back.” The product promises a “complete treatment” for just about every conceivable kind of engine from chain saws, leaf blowers, jet skis to gasoline and diesel engines.
The package contains three bottles of fluid – one for the engine, one for the transmission and one for the fuel tank. (Directions for using them are tightly sealed inside the tamper evident box they come in – no peaking!) For ground transportation vehicle engines, LePera explained “the recommended treatment is to add zMax at the 6,000 mile drain interval (i.e., It is added after the new oil has been charged to the engine) or add zMax every six months, which ever comes first.”
Keep in find that the $41.77 a zMax treatment cost could buy a consumer four full crankcases of brand new, conventional API-licensed SL oil, or close to two full crankcases of premium priced Mobil 1 synthetic.
Next month we’ll look at how automobile manufacturers and the oil industry approach the ALA issue. Meanwhile, anyone who buys ALA gets an automatic “A” in Professor P.T. Barnum’s introductory class, titled, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
What about those oil additives like Slick 50, Prolong and others?
The fact is they are totally useless and in many cases actually detrimental to your engine. The Federal Trade Commission has issued charges of false and deceptive advertising that these and many other additive manufacturers have misled consumers into believing that their products offer increased engine protection and performance when added to your motor oil.
Federal Trade Commission Charges zMax with False and Deceptive Advertising
Read about the latest FTC charges against zMax in our informative articles link. ZMax is the latest company to be charged in a long list of companies. The FTC has successfully halted false and deceptive advertising by the marketers of Dura Lube, Motor Up, Prolong, Valvoline, Slick 50. STP and other major brands of engine treatment systems. As a result of the charges, some are now out of business while others are required to revise their advertising claims.
Without going into extensive detail here's what you need to know about aftermarket oil additives: There are basically two types of additives used, either Teflon based with PTFE (like Slick 50) or Chlorinated based (like Dura Lube) with some type of carrier, usually a paraffin based carrier or other mineral oil. Some have extremely large amounts of moly, zinc or phosphorus, all extreme pressure agents which are detrimental to a motor oils proper function in the amount that they use.
Teflon does absolutely nothing inside your engine. Teflon must be heated up to about 800 deg. F to get it to stick to anything for friction reducing purposes, just like the Teflon on a frying pan, yet in your engine all those suspended microscopic colloidal Teflon particles do is gradually attach to you oil pick-up screen and reduce oil flow to your critical components as well as reducing the oil flow in other critical internal engine passages by attaching themselves to the passageway walls. In addition, as your oil filter filters out some of these suspended Teflon particles, your filter flow rate will be reduced which may eventually become restricted and default in to by-pass mode, which means unfiltered oil will be flowing through your engine.
Ever get bleach on your fingers? It's pretty slippery isn't it? Same principle here. Add enough Chlorinated components to a carrier and mix it with some type of teflon, moly, zinc or phosporus & you can reduce the friction, except for one "minor" thing: Chlorinated additives mixed with oil and subjected to heat forms hydrochloric acid! Hydrochloric acid is extremely detrimental to you internal engine parts. Get the picture? That's it in a nutshell.
The bottom line is: When using a properly formulated motor oil you do not need any additives whatsoever and additionally, the additives you may put in can react negatively with the additives the oil company carefully blended in. The major oil and additive companies are some of the richest and most powerful companies in the world, and they certainly can afford to hire the top chemists that know how to properly formulate a motor oil (this is not to say they make a quality motor oil; just that they know how to properly formulate one to perform the functions it was designed to do and meet the required specifications). Then these additive companies pop up claiming to perform miracles with their outrageously priced snake oil. Do yourself a favor and stay away from aftermarket oil additives, regardless of how appealing the bogus claims they make in their advertising are!
What if They Have a Test To Show How Their Additive Works?... Read On...
At a recent trade show we were at one of these miracle oil additive companies was there with a machine that demonstrated how their additive reduced friction. It was a motor with rotating solid steel disc secured to the motor shaft and a torque meter with a flat piece of steel mounted on the torque arm. They put every type of oil on the market, one by one, on the machine & pressed hard on the torque meter and at about 20-40 lb-ft torque the torque arm would stall the motor....that is until they cleaned it off & tried their (chlorinated) additive "IXL" on the bearing & ran the test.
People were amazed as the meter peaked out at 140 lb-ft. torque and still didn't stall the motor. We knew what was happening but many unsuspecting consumers were eating it up and standing in line to buy the additive. The next day we showed up with some Head & Shoulders Shampoo disguised in an oil bottle & had the IXL additive people try it on their test machine. The operator was amazed as the motor just barely stalled at 140 lb-ft. The operator says that's pretty good stuff, what is it? We said Head & Shoulders. He was quite embarrassed to say the least. Head & Shoulders has high levels of high potency ZINC in it that attaches itself to ferrous metals. Coke soft drink will do exactly the same thing. ZINC reduces friction and provides anti-wear protection and is present in most motor oils at a much reduced level. Now, would you put Head & Shoulders in your engine?
Additionally, the test machine was measuring EXTREME PRESSURE. Motor oils do not have extreme pressure additives blended in like gear lubes do nor do they need extreme pressure additives. Their is absolutely no need for EP additives in a motor oil. A gear lube would not stall the motor as easily because gear lubes have high levels of Extreme Pressure additives blended in, but do you think they would test their IXL additive against gear lubes? Heck no! They use motor oil....They are comparing apples to oranges & tricking you into buying their additive. Same theory holds true for Slick50, Prolong, Dura Lube, Motor Up, Valvoline Engine Treatment and many others. Please DON'T be fooled by oil additives. They simply are not needed and can be detrimental to the proper function of a motor oil.
My oil of choice is in my sig line.
Aftermarket Lube Additives: An Industry’s Shame
By David McFall
Tucked into a musty corner of the massive petroleum industry, sheltered by the indifference of oil marketers, auto makers, retailers and the American Petroleum Institute, is the $150 million aftermarket lube additive market – a virtual plague of engine oil additives, supplemental additives, oil treatments and engine treatments.
Question One: What real benefits does this “mouse milk” (to use the oil industry’s own snickering phrase) provide?
The Answer: None, nada zip, zero.
Question Two: Do ALAs cause any harm?
The Answer: To engines, some probably do. To consumers and their wallets, yes. And to the environment, a resounding yes.
Shelves of the Northern Virginia Pep Boys store sport bottles of Shell oil’s newly acquired Slick 50 engine treatment, Valvoline’s SynPower Oil Treatment, STP Oil Treatment, the ubiquitous Prolong and the latest Federal Trade Commission target, zMax.
Also in this dubious assembly is the low-price entry, Proline Oil Treatment – only 99 cents per oil change, for which you’ll get your “noisy engine quieted, a reduction in oil burning and increased compression.”
Finally, there’s the real howler, Marvel Mystery oil, from USA Hardware in Minneapolis, at $1.99 an oil change. It will “combat internal motor rust and corrosion, lubricate valves, piston rings and upper cylinder and eliminate valve sticking, keep rings free and reduce piston and cylinder wear, retard formation of power dissipating motor deposits such as gum, varnish and sludge and will neutralize acid formation and improve viscosity index.”
q In its owner’s manual, Ford Motor Co. recommends against the use of aftermarket lubricant additives (ALAs) for engines, transmissions, transaxles, etc. For example, the engine oil section in the 2003 Ranger pickup’s manual states twice, for emphasis, on the same page, “Do not use supplemental engine oil additives, cleaners or other engine treatments. They are unnecessary and could lead to engine damage that is not covered by Ford warranty.”
q “Don’t add anything to you oil.” – 1998 Buick Regal owner’s manual
q “Do not add any material (other than leak detection dyes) to engine oil. Engine oil is an engineered product and its performance may be impaired by supplemental additives.” – 2003 DaimlerChrysler owner’s manual
q “Using supplemental additives is generally unnecessary and can even be harmful (emphasis added). One should never use an additive to fix a mechanical problem.” – Detroit Diesel bulletin several years ago
q “ExxonMobil does not recommend (additive supplements and/or engine treatments).” – Mobil 1 website
Du-uhh, isn’t that what motor oil does? The real mystery sis why anyone would buy this product or reputable stores would stock it.
Not yet on the Pep Boys shelf, but just off stage is another “truly revolutionary new technology.” LuBoron Advanced Lubrication Technology was, according to it promotional literature, developed by the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratories; its “fully degradable products literally change the surface characteristics of all metals…” and “reduce friction up to a staggering 80 percent, reduce wear up to 90 percent, and reduce internally generated friction heat by 40 percent to 50 percent. These dramatic claims are fully documented.”
LuBoron declined to respond to the issue of OEM concern over log term engine durability (or any other issue, for that matter) or possible harm from using aftermarket additives such as LuBoron product.
In The Government’s Sights – Beginning about a decade ago the Federal Trade Commission mounted a long-term attack on false, misleading and unsubstantiated performance claims made by manufacturers of ALAs.
Such claims are at the center of all the FTC suits over these products. When companies settle a suit they agree to stop making false and misleading claims, and in many cases pay a fine or a civil penalty.
Three of the more famous ALA manufacturers got nailed by the FTC in the late 1990s. In 2000, Dura Lube settled and paid a 2 million dollar fine, and Motor Up settled, too, after agreeing not to make claims it could it could not scientifically support, and not to misrepresent tests, studies or data on its product’s performance. In 1999, Prolong settled without a fine, also agreeing not to make unsupported claims. Earlier, in 1995, First Brands paid a $888,000 fine settle what the FTC said were misleading claims for STP Oil Treatment. Each of these companies continues to market ALAs.
Also, Quaker State (now part of Shell Oil) agreed to make at least $10 million in consumer redress, over allegedly deceptive advertising for Slick 50. And Ashland Inc., Valvoline’s parent company, settled without a fine in 1997 on TM8, a PTFE-containing ALA it no longer markets (although it has others on the retail shelves).
The FTC has only one active ALA case currently. Two years ago it brought suit against Speedway Motorsports Inc. (which owns and operates six NASCAR race tracks), alleging that the company used “false and misleading advertising for zMax auto additives.” ZMax is a product of Oil Chem Research Corp., a wholly owned Speedway subsidiary. The suit was based on 1997 data from two L-38 engine tests, which measures bearing corrosion.
These two tests, according to the FTC’s initial complaint, “actually demonstrated that motor oil treated with zMax produced more then twice as much bearing corrosion that motor oil alone.” The FTC complaint also charged Speedway and Oil-Chem with fabricating “one â€report’ from the two test reports, eliminating the bearing corrosion results and all other negative test results, and then used that report and the â€official’ laboratory results - similarly edited to remove detrimental data results – as sales tools.”
At press time, Lubes’n’Greases learned that the FTC has withdrawn the suit from litigation and that the parties had reached a settlement. Details of the agreement were unavailable from FTC staff, however, until a judge finalized it.
In the interim, Oil-Chem Research blusters that it will be vindicated, thanks to a barrage of testing data it supplied. The FTC’s experts witnesses, it says, “were unsuccessful to discredit the completed tests where zMax had been shown a reduce friction, increase horsepower, dissipate engine heat, improve fuel economy, extend engine life, etc. Had the witnesses been able to discredit the accumulated testing, zMax would most certain have gone the same route of Prolong, Slick 50, Motor Up and the rest.”
It’s likely, however, that zMax may be enjoined from hanging a percentage on its fuel economy claim, one observer said. (That is, “increases gas mileage: would be OK; “Increases gas mileage by 5-13 percent,” as it now claims, would be verboten.)
“Not An Additive”- Throughout the case, Speedway Motorsports vigorously disputed the FTC charge. Speedway’s consultant, Mario LePera, formally with the U.S. Army’s Mobility Technology Center at Ft. Belvior, Va., noted, “The L-38 tests which the FTC relied on were run on oils formulated for aircraft piston engines (i.e. meeting SAEJ1899) and that although the test showed increased bearing corrosion, it did not exceed the specifications limits for that product.”
LePera presented Lubes’n’Greases with a list of six additional L-38 (now renamed the Sequence VIII) engine tests, which were conducted on zMax between November 2001 and January 2003. These were so called A/B testes, where the tests runs first with engine oil alone, then with zMax added. The oil used differed each time but one, as did the treat rate with the zMax. Some results are widely impressive, others impressively wild. Bearing weight loss might go down 73.8 percent – or up 8 percent, for example. Blow bycould increase 1.1 percent, or drop 3.5 percent. But since every test is on different viscosity oil, or at a different treat rate, how to compare them? And why the differing treat rates anyway? Cant Oil-Chem settle on the right one for these oils? The tests also don’t speak to Max’s long-term effect on engine durability.
“In every case, there were no increases in bearing corrosion,” LePera said, adding, “all of the test, using wither SJ or SL quality oils, were done in Oil-Chem’s lab, by Oil-Chem employees in stands calibrated according to ASTM D6709.” (The stands had not been referenced by the Test Monitoring Center, as is done with independent engine test labs.)
If engine oils want to claim fuel economy benefits, they must perform the difficult, expensive and finicky Sequence VIB test. Should zMax be allowed to claim fuel economy enhancements based on various oils and treat levels in the L-38/Sequence VIII? (That’s a question the FTC asked, too. It’ll be interesting to hear what the judge says.)
However, Ed Rachanski Sr., Oil-Chem Research’s director, and LePera say there are a number of other tests – vehicle field tests, engine dynamometer tests and lab bench tests – Which they say, “certainly prove zMax to provide beneficial effects. Further, to subject zMax to the laboratory and engine dynamometer testing required for PI SL/GF-3 would be inappropriate as it is neither an engine oil nor an additive system.” See, zMax is “not an automotive engine oil or an engine additive that is required to pass API/SAE/ILSAC specifications and undergo the certification process,” the two reiterate. “zMax by both public and industry concepts is not an additive.” Rather, it “is in a unique field of its own, as it treats the metal and not the engine oil.”
Got that? They can test it, you can’t.
Inside The Box – how is zMax used? Take a look at its marketing program and product packaging. Which bears its full title, “zMax Micro-Lubricant Power System,” selling for $41.77. First zMax promises to “increase gas mileage by 5-13 percent, soak into metal and protect the engine form inside out, restore power and improve performance, reduce wear and friction, lengthen engine life, prevent blow by and reduce carbon formation, reduce emissions, protect vital engine parts and is capable of lowering the coefficient of friction between two sliding metal surfaces.”
Lots of other claims, too, but you get the idea. NASCAR legend A.J. Foyt plans to use it “for the rest of my life.”
The Slick packaging includes an API-like “star burst” promising an “iron clad 150,000 mile no-non-sense GUARANTEE, when properly used every six thousand miles or every six months which ever comes first.” Another GUARANTEE: “Better fuel mileage or your money back.” The product promises a “complete treatment” for just about every conceivable kind of engine from chain saws, leaf blowers, jet skis to gasoline and diesel engines.
The package contains three bottles of fluid – one for the engine, one for the transmission and one for the fuel tank. (Directions for using them are tightly sealed inside the tamper evident box they come in – no peaking!) For ground transportation vehicle engines, LePera explained “the recommended treatment is to add zMax at the 6,000 mile drain interval (i.e., It is added after the new oil has been charged to the engine) or add zMax every six months, which ever comes first.”
Keep in find that the $41.77 a zMax treatment cost could buy a consumer four full crankcases of brand new, conventional API-licensed SL oil, or close to two full crankcases of premium priced Mobil 1 synthetic.
Next month we’ll look at how automobile manufacturers and the oil industry approach the ALA issue. Meanwhile, anyone who buys ALA gets an automatic “A” in Professor P.T. Barnum’s introductory class, titled, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
What about those oil additives like Slick 50, Prolong and others?
The fact is they are totally useless and in many cases actually detrimental to your engine. The Federal Trade Commission has issued charges of false and deceptive advertising that these and many other additive manufacturers have misled consumers into believing that their products offer increased engine protection and performance when added to your motor oil.
Federal Trade Commission Charges zMax with False and Deceptive Advertising
Read about the latest FTC charges against zMax in our informative articles link. ZMax is the latest company to be charged in a long list of companies. The FTC has successfully halted false and deceptive advertising by the marketers of Dura Lube, Motor Up, Prolong, Valvoline, Slick 50. STP and other major brands of engine treatment systems. As a result of the charges, some are now out of business while others are required to revise their advertising claims.
Without going into extensive detail here's what you need to know about aftermarket oil additives: There are basically two types of additives used, either Teflon based with PTFE (like Slick 50) or Chlorinated based (like Dura Lube) with some type of carrier, usually a paraffin based carrier or other mineral oil. Some have extremely large amounts of moly, zinc or phosphorus, all extreme pressure agents which are detrimental to a motor oils proper function in the amount that they use.
Teflon does absolutely nothing inside your engine. Teflon must be heated up to about 800 deg. F to get it to stick to anything for friction reducing purposes, just like the Teflon on a frying pan, yet in your engine all those suspended microscopic colloidal Teflon particles do is gradually attach to you oil pick-up screen and reduce oil flow to your critical components as well as reducing the oil flow in other critical internal engine passages by attaching themselves to the passageway walls. In addition, as your oil filter filters out some of these suspended Teflon particles, your filter flow rate will be reduced which may eventually become restricted and default in to by-pass mode, which means unfiltered oil will be flowing through your engine.
Ever get bleach on your fingers? It's pretty slippery isn't it? Same principle here. Add enough Chlorinated components to a carrier and mix it with some type of teflon, moly, zinc or phosporus & you can reduce the friction, except for one "minor" thing: Chlorinated additives mixed with oil and subjected to heat forms hydrochloric acid! Hydrochloric acid is extremely detrimental to you internal engine parts. Get the picture? That's it in a nutshell.
The bottom line is: When using a properly formulated motor oil you do not need any additives whatsoever and additionally, the additives you may put in can react negatively with the additives the oil company carefully blended in. The major oil and additive companies are some of the richest and most powerful companies in the world, and they certainly can afford to hire the top chemists that know how to properly formulate a motor oil (this is not to say they make a quality motor oil; just that they know how to properly formulate one to perform the functions it was designed to do and meet the required specifications). Then these additive companies pop up claiming to perform miracles with their outrageously priced snake oil. Do yourself a favor and stay away from aftermarket oil additives, regardless of how appealing the bogus claims they make in their advertising are!
What if They Have a Test To Show How Their Additive Works?... Read On...
At a recent trade show we were at one of these miracle oil additive companies was there with a machine that demonstrated how their additive reduced friction. It was a motor with rotating solid steel disc secured to the motor shaft and a torque meter with a flat piece of steel mounted on the torque arm. They put every type of oil on the market, one by one, on the machine & pressed hard on the torque meter and at about 20-40 lb-ft torque the torque arm would stall the motor....that is until they cleaned it off & tried their (chlorinated) additive "IXL" on the bearing & ran the test.
People were amazed as the meter peaked out at 140 lb-ft. torque and still didn't stall the motor. We knew what was happening but many unsuspecting consumers were eating it up and standing in line to buy the additive. The next day we showed up with some Head & Shoulders Shampoo disguised in an oil bottle & had the IXL additive people try it on their test machine. The operator was amazed as the motor just barely stalled at 140 lb-ft. The operator says that's pretty good stuff, what is it? We said Head & Shoulders. He was quite embarrassed to say the least. Head & Shoulders has high levels of high potency ZINC in it that attaches itself to ferrous metals. Coke soft drink will do exactly the same thing. ZINC reduces friction and provides anti-wear protection and is present in most motor oils at a much reduced level. Now, would you put Head & Shoulders in your engine?
Additionally, the test machine was measuring EXTREME PRESSURE. Motor oils do not have extreme pressure additives blended in like gear lubes do nor do they need extreme pressure additives. Their is absolutely no need for EP additives in a motor oil. A gear lube would not stall the motor as easily because gear lubes have high levels of Extreme Pressure additives blended in, but do you think they would test their IXL additive against gear lubes? Heck no! They use motor oil....They are comparing apples to oranges & tricking you into buying their additive. Same theory holds true for Slick50, Prolong, Dura Lube, Motor Up, Valvoline Engine Treatment and many others. Please DON'T be fooled by oil additives. They simply are not needed and can be detrimental to the proper function of a motor oil.
#4
06-25-2004, 04:58 AM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does slick 50 work?
ok,ok,ok.... didn't mean to get your dander up..LOL. Thanks for the info, I'll be sure to pass it on, if I can remember it 
#5
06-25-2004, 07:19 PM
RE: Does slick 50 work?
Is there any DaimlerChrysler employee willing to share one of there employee choice #.
I 've decided to purchase a Dodge Ram 1500 and heard about the info from the dealer.
I'm told I would need your name and the number. If your can do this for me send it to my email address cbohanno@kmart.com. Maybe we can work some kind of trade out.
Looking to purchase on Monday, June 28th.
Thanks
I 've decided to purchase a Dodge Ram 1500 and heard about the info from the dealer.
I'm told I would need your name and the number. If your can do this for me send it to my email address cbohanno@kmart.com. Maybe we can work some kind of trade out.
Looking to purchase on Monday, June 28th.
Thanks
