My neighbor is a Tech for a dealership and swears by this stuff but I am a little leary myself.

Any Slick 50 users here?

 

not me never heard of anyone useing it in a vette, sure someone will chime in with an opinion

 

NO

 

Given a good synthetic oil, no additional additives are required. The best you can do is a good oil and good filter and changes when required. I would never use Slick 50. If you want to use an additive, then check on Lube Control. At least it does something (reduces oxidation of the oil) that is beneficial.

 

I used it in a couple of other cars I had, but not in my 'Vette. I can't say that the stuff helped anything, but it didn't seem to hurt....

 

snake oil!!!

 

I have a friend who used to sell it, had a 5 hp briggs motor with a clear side cover on it. Drain the oil , added slick 50,ran it for 10 minutes, then drained the slick 50 and ran the motor for hours and I mean hours. The thing never froze or scuffed the bore or heated the bearings, it was never hot to the touch. Honest. When he passed away, his wife gave me all his old stock. I used it up in my mowers, sand rail and other stuff. I never had a bearing or any other problems. I think it may help, but in my vette, I am sticking with mobil 1 and no slick 50. I dont think it will cause problems....the slick 50 that is...

 

I used to use X-1R in my 94 Z28. The only performance increase I had was due to the weight reduction in my wallet.

 

I used the Slick 50 for synthetic oil at each oil change. It is hard to find the synthetic brand though. Have no idea if it helped anything but I have been using the stuff on my cars since they first came out with it.

 

I would not use slick in my vet. . Mobile 1 10w30 only is what I use...

 

I never use it. I don't believe it is needed or does any good. My brother, however, swears by it and always runs his vehicles over 100K miles.

 

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/07/slick.htm

FOR RELEASE: JULY 23, 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUAKER STATE SUBSIDIARIES SETTLE FTC CHARGES AGAINST SLICK 50
Agreement Safeguards $10 Million in Redress to Consumers

Three subsidiaries of Quaker State Corp. have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for Quaker State's Slick 50 Engine Treatment were false and unsubstantiated. Under the terms of the settlement, the companies will be barred from making certain claims and required to have substantiation for claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy or attributes of their engine lubricant products. In addition, the settlement will preserve the Commission's option to seek consumer redress if class action suits currently being litigated against Quaker State and its subsidiaries result in less than $10 million in consumer redress.

The three Quaker State subsidiaries named in the settlement are Blue Coral, Inc., Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc., and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd. Blue Coral, Inc., is based in Cleveland, Ohio. Since its 1978 introduction, Slick 50 has about 30 million users world-wide and retails for about $18 a quart. The company claims to have about 60% of the engine treatment market.

In July, 1996, the FTC issued a complaint against four now-defunct Quaker State subsidiaries, which have been succeeded in interest by the three subsidiaries named in the settlement. The FTC's 1996 complaint charged that ads for Slick 50 claiming improved engine performance and reduced engine wear were deceptive. According to the 1996 complaint, Quaker State's subsidiaries 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";

--"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 complaint, these claims and similar ones falsely represented that without Slick 50, auto engines generally have little or no protection from wear at start-up and commonly experience premature failure caused by wear. In fact, the complaint alleged, most automobile engines are adequately protected from wear at start-up when they use motor oil as recommended in the owner's manual. Moreover, it is uncommon for engines to experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they have been treated with Slick 50 or not, according to the FTC. Finally, the FTC alleged that Slick 50 neither coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE nor meets military specifications for motor oil additives, as falsely claimed.

The FTC complaint also charged that Slick 50 lacked substantiation for 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.

In addition, the complaint alleged 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 challenged ads stating that "tests prove" the engine wear reduction claims make 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 agreement to settle the FTC charges bars any claims that:

--engines lack protection from wear at start-up unless they have been treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product;

--engines commonly experience premature failure caused by wear unless they are treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product; or,

--Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE.

In addition, the agreement will prohibit misrepresentations that Slick 50 or any engine lubricant meets the standards of any organization and misrepresentations about tests or studies.

The settlement also prohibits any claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of engine lubricants unless Quaker State's subsidiaries possess and rely on competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the claims. In addition, it prohibits the Quaker State subsidiaries 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. The subsidiaries also will be required to notify resellers of the product about the settlement with the FTC and the restrictions on advertising claims.

Finally, the agreement holds open the option that the FTC may seek consumer redress. If the private class action suits against Slick 50 currently under litigation do not result in at least $10 million in redress to consumers, the agency reserves its right to file its own federal district court action for consumer redress. In addition, the FTC has reserved its right to seek to intervene in any class action suit to oppose a settlement it believes is not in the public interest.

The Commission vote to approve the proposed consent agreement was 5-0. A summary of the agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.

 

Absolute snake oil. May take your oil right out of the reccomended viscosity range.

 

I don't know what a "viscosity range" is, but, I've used Slick 50 and my car doesn't have the noises it used to when started cold. As far as "viscosity range" goes, Lingenfelter Engineering put 15w50 in my engine when they installed their package in my car, which is way out of the GM recommended "viscosity range". I gotta believe that Lingenfelter knows what they're doing. They sure know how to make a car RUN STRONG!!!

 

I have a bridge I own for sale near me in Brooklyn

 

I have never used Slick 50 but I use RESTORE in my other car (98 Eclipse Turbo-AWD) together with Mobil 1 Synthetic. It eliminates annoying lifter tick and safe enough for the turbo.

 

Slick 50 used to claim that if you use it, it will protect your engine with Teflon (the commercial name for PTFE). Considering that Teflon requires around 700 degrees to bond to a surface...I doubt it.

Slick 50 = Snake oil. A good quality synthetic (e.g. Mobil 1, Castrol, Valvoline) is ALL you need and all I would ever put in my engine.

Also, if for some reason your engine fails, the dealer WILL do an analysis on your oil. If there's something in there that shouldn't be, they may very well void the warranty.

 

No offense but 75W/90 gear oil would really cause your engine to run quietly.

Also 15W/50 is great if you are going to spend all yourf time at very high engine temps. But that stuff has a cSt of around 21 at 212 deg F. That is about twice the viscosity of a 5w/30 at the same temperature. Not a real good choice for a street car in my opinion.

 

I had a colleague who was a specialist in lubrication and I discussed these additives with him some years ago. Running an engine for a long time without oil after first circulating an additive is probably correct but has little to do with normal operation. In normal operation, the circulating oil washes the additive off the lubricated surfaces and there is little benefit.

 

GM for one would never reccomend this additive. Slick 50 is good for throwing your hard earned cash in a rat hole! Regular oil changes are all that is required. Period! Most oil addative companies have already been litigated including this one! Impress who ever you want and just tell them the slick 50 is great!! He He Do your homework and you will see the light!