Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help




Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes ShopForum > Technical Information and Support > Performance Paddock

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-18-1999, 07:30 PM
Bill Wood
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There have been several questions regarding oil additives. I am NOT a big fan of oil additives. As far as I'm concerned they are nothing more than modern day snake oil. Companies like Mobil, Castrol, Royal Purple, et al spend a ton of money researching oil and lubricants. There is a delicate balance between the base oil, the necessary additives and combustion by products combined with heat…you get the picture. ANYTHING you add to your oil has the potential of upsetting that balance.

Most of you are familiar with the engine additive SLICK 50. While all engine additives may not be the same as Slick 50, I personally look at ALL of them with a jaundiced eye. Here’s why you should too:

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

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.

------------------
'98 E430
MBCA-Peachtree

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-19-1999, 12:06 AM
Chris Ecklund
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
WOW !!

A very detailed and thorough explanation of this, to this I take my hat off to you sir.

I spent several hours one night looking at a lot of stuff on the Internet on slick 50 and other oil additives, etc..., until I came across a paper that had to be 50 pages on the internet, written by ( I believe) number 2 in charge of engineering at the Ford Motor Company.

His study concluded, that Slick 50 used in older cars that had oil sludge buildup, could actually cause an oil passage to clog up totally, leading to engine failure!

It was a very technical study, and I cant remember all the details, but with all the advances with the new oils today, who really needs this stuff?

Plus, it will void my warranty on my new benz........
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-19-1999, 09:13 AM
Bruce R.
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
A while back I believe Slick 50 or an other company with a similar product, sold an "aircraft quality" version of the same thing. There seemed to be two outcomes after it's use: (1) The engine ran great and had better fuel economy. (2) The engine ran great for 10-20 hours and then failed completely. After a fairly large number of failures the stuff was pulled from the market. The oil companies put enough additives in the oil already I'm not going to add anything to the mix.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-11-2011, 02:40 PM
oldsinner111's Avatar
a parent should die first
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: bristol,tn
Posts: 5,059
interesting from long ago.
__________________
usaf veteran ecm repair, ex hippy from california,sober,no drugs or alcohol since 1985,not religous,or political anymore,if voting made any difference it would be illegal
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-11-2011, 08:36 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,750
While I've never held any faith in "Slick 50", there are a few companies that have good oil additive packages. The company "BG" has several good additives. They are not snake oil PTFE additives, but do contain phosphorous and zinc. Both of which are great in older engines that have friction surfaces and aren't the close tolerance, roller everything engines modern oils are designed for.
__________________
90 300TE 4-Matic

Turbo 103 4-Matic, 3° cam advance
11-18 PSI, A2W I/C, 40 LB/HR
MS II Extra, 60-2 Direct Coil Control
3" Exhaust, AEM W/B O2
Underdrive Alt. and P/S Pulleys,
Vented Rear Brake Discs, .034 Booster.
3.07 Front and Rear Diff, 1st Gear Start

91 300CE parting

90 300CE 104.980
Milled & ported head, 10.3:1 compression
197° intake cam w/20° advancer
4° ignition advance
PCS TCM2000 running 722.6 trans, 600W PWM fan, water injection
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-18-2011, 10:40 AM
oldsinner111's Avatar
a parent should die first
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: bristol,tn
Posts: 5,059
I still like STP for high mileage engines.
__________________
usaf veteran ecm repair, ex hippy from california,sober,no drugs or alcohol since 1985,not religous,or political anymore,if voting made any difference it would be illegal
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-24-2011, 10:53 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Wood View Post
they are nothing more than modern day snake oil.
Thats all there is to it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
oil change wyoo Tech Help 43 03-29-2017 02:54 PM
The oil debate again What do you think of this dpbrowne Diesel Discussion 101 04-01-2005 02:33 PM
Foreign and Domestic Oil no longer needed... moparmike Off-Topic Discussion 5 09-04-2003 08:13 PM
oil additives AAL Tech Help 17 02-09-2002 07:35 PM
Motor Flush drew3395 Diesel Discussion 39 01-12-2002 03:22 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page