I just changed my oil and add a litre of slick 50 in it. I felt that it helps my cold start and first movement on my car. Have anyone used this product and felt the some way?

I would say "yes" from my past experience with it (ages ago, mind you) and especially with older cars moreso than newer/younger engines.

I think you will be able to do a search and find opinions mixed on this topic.

I tried it once, and it was no different than that "Mystery Oil" that I got in a red-container. So I'm not a believer in it.

The PTFE (teflon) additive may fall out of suspension over time and plug tiny cavities...like the hydraulic lifters. I wouldn't use it.

my .02
Roger
'95 M3

I would stay away from those engine additives.

FOR RELEASE: JULY 16, 1996


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUAKER STATE ADS FOR SLICK 50
ARE FALSE AND MISLEADING, FTC CHARGES

The Federal Trade Commission has charged Quaker State - Slick 50, Inc., the manufacturer of Slick 50, the best-selling auto engine treatment in the U.S., with making false and unsubstantiated advertising claims. According to the FTC, ads for Slick 50 that tout tests showing improved engine performance are false and its claims of reduced engine wear are unsubstantiated.

Quaker State - Slick 50 is based in Houston, Texas. Since its 1978 introduction, Slick 50 has attracted about 30 million users world-wide. Slick 50 retails for about $18 a quart, and the company claims to have about 60% of the engine treatment market.

"Slick 50's ads claim that compared to motor oil alone, it reduces engine wear, lengthens engine life, and provides a host of other benefits. The claims sound good, but the evidence doesn't back them up,” said Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We believe the ads exaggerate the lack of protection motor oils provide modern engines at start-up, as well as the risk of premature engine failure. The premature engine failure Slick 50 claims to guard against is uncommon, and the company lacks reliable evidence it would be prevented by using Slick 50, in any case," she said. "In fact, all the evidence we've seen so far suggests that the best thing you can do for your car’s engine is to get an oil change performed at manufacturer recommended intervals," she said. "People who want to maximize their automobile performance and enhance its long life should read the owner's manual and follow the directions.”

Slick 50 is the most recent in a series of FTC cases challenging allegedly deceptive ad claims for oil additives or high octane fuel. “Last year, STP Corporation and its parent corporation, First Brands, paid an $888,000 civil penalty to settle FTC charges that they were making false and unsubstantiated claims for their engine treatment," Bernstein said.

According to the FTC complaint detailing the charges in this case, Slick 50 aired television and radio commercials and published brochures carrying claims such as:

"Every time you cold start your car without Slick 50 protection, metal grinds against metal in your engine...
" With each turn of the ignition you do unseen damage, because at cold start- up most of the oil is down in the pan. But Slick 50's unique chemistry bonds to engine parts. It reduces wear up to 50% for 50, 000 miles," and;
"What makes Slick 50 Automotive Engine Formula different is an advanced chemical support package designed to bond a specially activated PTFE to the metal in your engine. "
According to the FTC, these claims and others falsely represented that auto engines generally have little or no protection from wear without Slick 50. It is uncommon, however, for engines to experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they are treated with Slick 50 or not. Finally, the FTC alleges that Slick 50 neither coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE nor meets military specifications for motor oil additives.

The FTC complaint also specifically charges that Slick 50 did not have adequate substantiation for its advertising claims that, compared to motor oil alone, the product:

reduces engine wear;
reduces engine wear by more than 50%;
reduces engine wear by up to 50%;
reduces engine wear at start-up;
extends the duration of engine life;
lowers engine temperatures;
reduces toxic emissions;
increases gas mileage; and
increases horsepower.
The complaint also alleges that the company did not have adequate substantiation for its 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.

Finally, the complaint challenges ads stating that “tests prove” the engine wear claims made by Slick 50. In fact, according to the FTC complaint, tests do not prove that Slick 50 reduces engine wear at start up, or by 50%, or that one treatment reduces engine wear for 50,000 miles.

The order the FTC is seeking would prohibit misrepresentations about the benefits of using Slick 50 and require that ad claims be backed by competent and reliable evidence. In addition, if the facts are found as alleged, and issuance of a cease and desist order alone is inadequate to protect consumers, the Commission may require corrective advertising or other affirmative disclosures. It may also apply to a federal court to obtain restitution for consumers.

The complaint also names three subsidiaries: Slick 50 Management, Inc., Slick 50 Products Corp., and Slick 50 Corp.

The Commission vote to issue the complaint was 5-0.

NOTE: The Commission issues a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of a complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has violated the law. The complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be ruled upon after a formal hearing.

Copies of the complaint and an FTC brochure, "Penny Wise or Pump Fuelish" are available from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202- 326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 1-866-653-4261. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710. FTC news releases and other materials also are available on the Internet at the FTC's World Wide Web site at: http.//www.ftc.gov


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEDIA CONTACT:

Claudia Bourne Farrell
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181

STAFF CONTACT:

Elaine D. Kolish or Mary K. Engle
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3042 or 202-326-3161

(FTC File No. 932 3050)

(Docket No. D-9280)
(slick)

thks ss328. I guest it's not was they say about the slick 50. But I believe there is a little of a difference when I used it. My cold start is a little sluggush and after I used it it helps a little. The rpm rev as high as before. Overall, the slick 50 itsn't as good as they say.

I'll go under the axiom that if the additive made the product better the maker would have added it themselves... At least in the highest quality product in their line.

I wouldn't use any additive.

Bob ///M3

Great info here. I'm glad I checked back to read it. I haven't used it since my first 2 cars, both of which were 6-9 yrs old when I got a hold of them back in the mid 80's.

I haven't used it on any of my cars since then cuz all of my car since then have been newer, and they simply wouldn't need it.

I think if you're getting a car that is 15-20 yrs old, why the heck not, but on some of the newer cars, it just might do more damage than good, as evidenced above.

Honestly, it did work for me. But as silverstreak says, im not using it in a newer engines/cars. I used it in a worn out 5.0 Lincoln :o
:D

I remember reading about a study that was done using Slick 50 - they measured more engine and bearing wear than on the engine that they were using as a control. Their theory was that the ptfe particles were clogging some of the smaller oil passages and the oil filter, causing some parts of the engine to be oil-starved. Interesting thing was they did get more horsepower. Personally, I don't think the added horsepower makes the additional engine wear worthwhile.

Do a Google search, and you can find references to some of the tests that were done by places like Briggs & Stratton, NASA, and some universities. You can probably order a reprint of the Consumer Reports tests of oil additives - I think they tested either Prolong or Slick 50.

Anyway, do some research before dumping this stuff into your engine.

Jim

Slick 50 is a thinner oil than what you put in.

Try using a better synthetic oil, like Mobil 10W30 or Amsoil 0W30. The FIRST number indicates a low-temp pumpability (NOT a weight or viscosity number), and the second is the SAE weight at 100 degrees C.

Everyone should read the Motor Oil Bible.

JamesM

I have been away a while and when I saw this thread I thought "Oh No" I hope someone posted the FTC release.

I have seen some studies that suggest that products like these actually do more harm than good as they upset the chemical balance of the oil. As such the good anti-oxidents and anti-acid additives are used up attempting to neutralize the Slick 50 and the chemical compounds if forms as it reacts with the other elements in the oil. The net result is a less effective overall package and more wear than conventional oil alone.

Stick with the best, Amsoil!

Don
www.syntheticoils.net/dstevens