It was touted some 40 years ago as a formulation that would protect your engine. So, could not sleep last night and instead of sheep, or sugar plums, for some reason, thoughts of Slick 50 popped into my head. I remember it making a big splash and lots of my friends bought into the stuff. I would have, but it was expensive and I was not rolling in cash. Was it good I saved my $$? Quaker State Subsidiaries Settle FTC Charges Against Slick 50 | Federal Trade Commission I guess it is still around in differing formulations, as well as many other brands that tout treatments. Think I will stick to Kirkland synthetic engine oil.
i was at a trade show where a guy was demonstrating an engine with slick 50 and no oil. iirc, it was made out of some clear material so you could see the inside working, or a window type thing. it was impressive, but might have just been a dream.
I'm old, I remember Slick-50, I may have "treated" a car or two back in the day when cars were rarely kept for much longer than 100K miles. Yes, there are several products that tout the benefits of PTFE/teflon chemical formulations. There are several products that tout molybdenum/moly additives as well that have similar claims of coating/protecting metal surfaces and decreasing friction beyond what you get from motor oil, whether it is synthetic, conventional, etc.
PTFE is a forever chemical, so you cannot even get decent dental floss anymore. It is slick but it probably does not stick well on metal surfaces. Which means what? It gets stuck on your cat converter or what? .
I was reasonably new in the trade when this first hit the shelves in Australia. Slick 50, Wynns oil treatment and ProMar oil treatment were put to the test on the Timken roller test machine along with 3 well know high cost oils. Each oil on it'd own was tested, Mobil 1 wasn't available back then and it would have been interesting to test it along side the others. The only oil that passed the load shear test where 50ftlb was applied on a torque arm holding the Timken roller against the inner bearing case, was Penrite 20w/50, I won't name the other oils, but they were expensive yet the roller friction welded to the inner race within a min or so, even after being run in the oil bath for 10 mins at no load to allow a good coating of both parts. If enough pressure was applied, the motor would load up significantly, even with the Penrite oil. New, the oil that failed the test the worst, was again tested with each additive and allowed the 10 mins to condition the metal surfaces ..... Slick 50 did no better than the straight oil, Wynns and ProMar passed the test and accepted loads of 100ftlb without seizing. The oil cup was removed and the test between the 3 additives was repeated, the Slick 50 seized very quickly, the Wynns lasted for quite a while under 100ftlb load, but the motor amps went up after a short period, the ProMar lasted 10 mins without a noticeable increase in amps after the intial load was applied, but both rollers had a section the shape of the inner bearing cone worn into them .... more a visual difference between the Wynns and Promar, the micrometer was hard to read any difference at the lowest point. The catch with the ProMar was not to use in an engine before it had been run in, oil it used oil, found that one out to my own expense after using their grease when fitting the pistons and rings into the bore, 1ltr per 1,000kms oil consumption and remained the same for 20,000kms, but used it in the drag race engines, oil was cheap insurance under that sort of punishment. The other catch was oil changes every 2,000kms along with the filter in older engines, until the oil stayed clean on the dip stick. You most certainly didn't used either in very high milage engines, it was only the junk built up that kept them sealed ... Another disaster story with Slick 50, another service centre put it in a doctors Ferrari, it didn't take long before it lost oil pressure at idle and low rpm. The story went, the helical groove cut around the floating oil pressure relief valve was filled in to the point insufficient oil could bypass and the light spring pressure on this relief valve wasn't enough to stop the oil bypass ..... no idea if that was fact or fiction, but the story goes that the Slick 50 people paid the Ferrari mechanics to fully rebuild the engine ..... no idea if that was fact or fiction either ..... So, an actual test to prove what worked and what was air powered ...... T1 Terry
The art of suggestion, if enough people said it was good and really worked, then who were they to say different, so they would end up driving differently to get the result they believed they should get, then the tale was reinforce by yet another sucker ..... T1 Terry
The Automotive additive business is very lucrative: if I was a younger guy I might be tempted to make my own additive and sell it - buy a bunch of bulk Walmart SuperTech Oil add some Techron to it and package it as Uncle John's Miracle Oil Additive for older engines.
Yep, I remember putting it into my 1990 Chevy Z-24 V-6 engine a couple of times....didn't really notice any difference. Not surprised it's STILL available....kinda sorta.... AI tells this: what happened to the engine additive Slick 50? Thinking Kicking off 5 searches Looking at 46 sites Getting info from Shopping Putting it all together Slick 50 faced legal challenges and controversy over its formula and advertising claims, but the brand still exists and is sold today. The formula, however, is very different from its original Teflon-based version. False advertising and lawsuits FTC charges: In 1996 and 1997, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged Slick 50's then-parent company, Quaker State, with making false and unsubstantiated claims. The FTC's complaint stated that the company falsely claimed that Slick 50: Reduced engine wear by a specific percentage. Coated engine parts with a layer of PTFE (the brand name for Teflon). Met military specifications for motor oil additives. Increased horsepower and fuel efficiency. Settlement: Quaker State settled with the FTC, paying at least $10 million in consumer rebates and agreeing to stop making the unsubstantiated claims. A class-action lawsuit resulted in an additional $20 million settlement. Original formula discontinued: The legal troubles ultimately forced the company to discontinue the original PTFE-based formulation. The inventor of the original formula, John Bishop, had already ended his relationship with Slick 50's marketers in 1983. Formula and ownership changes Teflon controversy: The original Slick 50 was controversial because it contained suspended particles of PTFE (Teflon), which critics argued could clog oil passages and did not produce the claimed results. DuPont, the manufacturer of Teflon, stated that its product was not effective as a motor lubricant. Newer formulations: The modern Slick 50 products are sold under new formulas that no longer contain PTFE. Instead, they use different "Supercharged" or "Recharged" chemistries. One version of their "Classic" engine treatment uses Cerflon, a ceramic-reinforced fluoropolymer, which is presented as an updated technology for reducing friction. Other current formulations feature synthetic oil bases and seal-conditioning agents. Continual rebranding: Slick 50 has changed ownership and its products have been continuously rebranded to comply with regulations and update their marketing claims. The original pre-1984 formula is now sold separately under the name XcelPlus by the original inventor's company. How the product is sold today Slick 50 products are still available at major automotive retailers and online marketplaces. However, the modern versions are different from the original and market themselves as oil additives that offer protection for high-mileage engines or enhanced synthetic formulas, without making the exaggerated claims of the past.
