View Poll Results: Should I use it or sell it on ebay?
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll
Slick-50
12-22-2006, 06:39 PM
#31
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just found this topic, what are the results?
Okay, so I saw three people want to participate in this test. What are the results?
BTW, I've got more than a few Slick 50 stories myself. First one is in 1989. I've heard that it was a different formula then.. (I don't know).. We had a 1982 Buick Skylark with a 2.8 liter V6. Even with a new battery and starter, living in NJ at the time, it had very slow turning of the engine when starting, especially in the cold. The engine ran fairly warm too (per the temp gauge). A manager at Performance Auto Centers, near Middletown, NJ, suggested I get a quart and try it. It was $50 or 75 a quart then! Well, I said no, and he told me that if I got it, and it didn't help the car in just two weeks, he'd give me my money back. Long story short, in three days the engine turned over much faster and the car ran a lot better. That car was still running strong and turning over quickly when starting when we sold it in 1995.
Next, a 1991 Olds Cutless Supreme, 3.1 V6. We bought it used with 38K miles on it in Pittsburgh (1993). I immediately put in Slick 50 with the first oil change and regularly afterwards (Like once a year or so). In the summer of 1997, my (now Ex) wife took it to the store in Raleigh, and somehow sprung a leak in the lower radiator hose. On the way home from Raleigh, the engine temp light comes on. She thought "it needed more air flow", so she took the back roads, flying at 70+mph the 15 or so miles to get home.
It made it home, barely. Stopped in the driveway and had a horrible smell, sputtering, etc. Boy was I upset. After cooling down, the engine would turn over (spin) fine, but would not start. We talked to people and everyone said that the engine was dead and to expect $1500-2500 to replace it or re-build it. A friend came over and said, well let'* take the heads off and have a look-see. We did, and he asked when we got the new engine. We didn't, it had over 130K on it. He said that I was mistaken and it couldn't be that old. It must have been rebuilt or replaced. I said no, and told him we'd had it since 38K miles, etc. He showed me these really fine hash marks on the cylinder walls. Said that it was the original honing marks from when it was made and that they never looked that good when an engine had over 50K miles on it, let alone 130K. He also knows how me and the wife drove.
Long story short, the heads were warped, and after getting them planed at the local Car-Quest Machine Shop, and replacing ALL the rubber on the upper part of the engine, it ran better and faster than before. Had to replace a cam position sensor, water temp sensor, and some other random stuff. But it still ran great! he was amazed.
Third, I have a 1992 Plymouth Grand Voyager, 3.3 V6, with 190K miles on it. It had some noise on the top end, and about 110K when it was given to me three years ago. (Long story). I had been putting Slick 50 in it on and off before I owned it (like twice in 5 years) since I would help the previous owner change the oil from time to time. Since I got it, I put in the High mileage Slick 50 right away at an oil change and put it in again every third or fourth oil change since. Also put the Transmission stuff in when I changed the trans fluid and filter as well. (2 times in three years). The van'* engine and tranny are still running strong. If anyone has one of these, then you might know that the tranny usually goes at about 120-130K with conservative use. I drove that thing to DC twice, and to the mountains and back every week, sometimes twice a week for a year. The valve train noise went away, and it'* still running hard. The paint sucks and is flaking off very quickly, but hey.. it'* 15years old.
I also put the high mileage Slick 50 in the 93 I used to have and the 96 I currently have. Nothing to report other than I "think" it helps.. ?
-Chip
BTW, I've got more than a few Slick 50 stories myself. First one is in 1989. I've heard that it was a different formula then.. (I don't know).. We had a 1982 Buick Skylark with a 2.8 liter V6. Even with a new battery and starter, living in NJ at the time, it had very slow turning of the engine when starting, especially in the cold. The engine ran fairly warm too (per the temp gauge). A manager at Performance Auto Centers, near Middletown, NJ, suggested I get a quart and try it. It was $50 or 75 a quart then! Well, I said no, and he told me that if I got it, and it didn't help the car in just two weeks, he'd give me my money back. Long story short, in three days the engine turned over much faster and the car ran a lot better. That car was still running strong and turning over quickly when starting when we sold it in 1995.
Next, a 1991 Olds Cutless Supreme, 3.1 V6. We bought it used with 38K miles on it in Pittsburgh (1993). I immediately put in Slick 50 with the first oil change and regularly afterwards (Like once a year or so). In the summer of 1997, my (now Ex) wife took it to the store in Raleigh, and somehow sprung a leak in the lower radiator hose. On the way home from Raleigh, the engine temp light comes on. She thought "it needed more air flow", so she took the back roads, flying at 70+mph the 15 or so miles to get home.
It made it home, barely. Stopped in the driveway and had a horrible smell, sputtering, etc. Boy was I upset. After cooling down, the engine would turn over (spin) fine, but would not start. We talked to people and everyone said that the engine was dead and to expect $1500-2500 to replace it or re-build it. A friend came over and said, well let'* take the heads off and have a look-see. We did, and he asked when we got the new engine. We didn't, it had over 130K on it. He said that I was mistaken and it couldn't be that old. It must have been rebuilt or replaced. I said no, and told him we'd had it since 38K miles, etc. He showed me these really fine hash marks on the cylinder walls. Said that it was the original honing marks from when it was made and that they never looked that good when an engine had over 50K miles on it, let alone 130K. He also knows how me and the wife drove.
Long story short, the heads were warped, and after getting them planed at the local Car-Quest Machine Shop, and replacing ALL the rubber on the upper part of the engine, it ran better and faster than before. Had to replace a cam position sensor, water temp sensor, and some other random stuff. But it still ran great! he was amazed.Third, I have a 1992 Plymouth Grand Voyager, 3.3 V6, with 190K miles on it. It had some noise on the top end, and about 110K when it was given to me three years ago. (Long story). I had been putting Slick 50 in it on and off before I owned it (like twice in 5 years) since I would help the previous owner change the oil from time to time. Since I got it, I put in the High mileage Slick 50 right away at an oil change and put it in again every third or fourth oil change since. Also put the Transmission stuff in when I changed the trans fluid and filter as well. (2 times in three years). The van'* engine and tranny are still running strong. If anyone has one of these, then you might know that the tranny usually goes at about 120-130K with conservative use. I drove that thing to DC twice, and to the mountains and back every week, sometimes twice a week for a year. The valve train noise went away, and it'* still running hard. The paint sucks and is flaking off very quickly, but hey.. it'* 15years old.
I also put the high mileage Slick 50 in the 93 I used to have and the 96 I currently have. Nothing to report other than I "think" it helps.. ?
-Chip
12-22-2006, 09:05 PM
#32
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION RULING based on false claims by Slick50:
http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/s50com.html
IT IS ORDERED that respondents Blue Coral, Inc. and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc., corporations, and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd., a limited partnership, their successors and assigns, and their officers, agents, representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, in connection with the manufacturing, advertising, labeling, packaging, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of Slick 50, or any substantially similar motor oil product containing polytetrafluoroethylene (hereinafter "PTFE"), in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from representing, in any manner, directly or by implication, that:
A. Automobile engines generally have little or no protection from wear at or just after start-up unless they have been treated with such product;
B. Automobile engines commonly experience premature failure caused by wear unless they are treated with such product; or
C. Such product coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE.
II.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents Blue Coral, Inc. and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc., corporations, and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd., a limited partnership, their successors and assigns, and their officers, agents, representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, in connection with the manufacturing, advertising, labeling, packaging, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of Slick 50, any other engine lubricating product used in a motor vehicle and sold under the Slick 50 trademark, or any engine treatment or oil additive, in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:
A. Misrepresenting, in any manner, directly or by implication:
1. That such product meets military specifications or the requirements, standards, or specifications of any other governmental or private organization; or
2. The existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test or study.
B. Making any representation, in any manner, directly or by implication:
1. That, compared to motor oil alone, such product:
a) Reduces engine wear;
b) Reduces engine wear by more than 50%, by up to 50%, or by any other specific quantity;
c) Reduces engine wear at start-up;
d) Extends the duration of engine life; or
e) Lowers engine temperatures, reduces toxic emissions, increases gas mileage, or increases horsepower;
2. That one or any other number of treatments of such product reduces engine wear for 50,000 or any other number of miles;
3. That such product has been used in a significant number or any other number of U.*. Government vehicles; or
4. Regarding the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of such product,
unless, at the time of making such representation, respondents possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence, that substantiates the representation.
A. Automobile engines generally have little or no protection from wear at or just after start-up unless they have been treated with such product;
B. Automobile engines commonly experience premature failure caused by wear unless they are treated with such product; or
C. Such product coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE.
II.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents Blue Coral, Inc. and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc., corporations, and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd., a limited partnership, their successors and assigns, and their officers, agents, representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, in connection with the manufacturing, advertising, labeling, packaging, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of Slick 50, any other engine lubricating product used in a motor vehicle and sold under the Slick 50 trademark, or any engine treatment or oil additive, in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:
A. Misrepresenting, in any manner, directly or by implication:
1. That such product meets military specifications or the requirements, standards, or specifications of any other governmental or private organization; or
2. The existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test or study.
B. Making any representation, in any manner, directly or by implication:
1. That, compared to motor oil alone, such product:
a) Reduces engine wear;
b) Reduces engine wear by more than 50%, by up to 50%, or by any other specific quantity;
c) Reduces engine wear at start-up;
d) Extends the duration of engine life; or
e) Lowers engine temperatures, reduces toxic emissions, increases gas mileage, or increases horsepower;
2. That one or any other number of treatments of such product reduces engine wear for 50,000 or any other number of miles;
3. That such product has been used in a significant number or any other number of U.*. Government vehicles; or
4. Regarding the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of such product,
unless, at the time of making such representation, respondents possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence, that substantiates the representation.
12-22-2006, 09:18 PM
#33
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Dimondale, MI
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Greyhare
Originally Posted by popatim
Lets put it this way, Slick 50 is just a PTFE additive and back in 96 or 97 the Federal Trade commision went after them for false advertising. PTFE does not coat your engine, its sits down in the oil pan witht he rest of the oil and so offers no cold-start protection above normal oil, it does not meet Military specs, and is not used in governmental vehicles; which is probably why we see very little slick-50 ads anymore.
Just my $o.o2
Just my $o.o2
12-23-2006, 12:32 AM
#35
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Quincy, Ma
Posts: 15,342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: So the fact that it workes means nothing?
Originally Posted by chipinnc
So that fact that it actually worked for me and others, means nothing?
You guys are amazing.
You guys are amazing.
and this means what to you?
http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/s50com.html
take it up with the FTC
12-23-2006, 06:39 AM
#36
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OMG people can use Google?!?!
So the fact that there are cases when things actually work, with testimonials, not just from me, from others on this site, means nothing to you when you can Google something that counteracts it.
Oh, my God, people here can use Google!?!?! Wait, I'm sure there are hundreds of websites that say there is no God, so you don't believe in God either because some
web sites say that there is no God? (Actually more. Google: Results 1 - 50 of about 205,000,000 for "no god". (0.28 seconds) )
Take What up with the FTC? You really don't understand what that document says or what it means?
I'm sorry if you can't actually understand what was going on and read between the lines on that paperwork above. Anyone who ever bought Slick 50 would know that there is a warranty that comes with it. You send them your personal information, when you bought the stuff, what kind of car you have, mileage, etc. Then if any oil related problem happens to affect your engine, you can submit your receipts and (maybe) get it covered by the makers of Slick 50.
Now, I'm not saying that because it proves that Slick 50 works, I'm saying this because it proves that Slick 50 has a good handle on it'* customers. Their names, addresses, etc. This is important. Because they could not claim to not know who their customers were in order to potentially pay them if the FTC said to do that.
In reading the FTC "order" (the part of that document that has teeth), do they say that they have actually done damage to their customers? No. Do they say that they need to reimburse or pay their customers for fraud? No. Is there any action listed in the order that forces them to make ANY monetary exchange at all, including fines to the Govt/FTC/Etc., or repayments to "affected" consumers? No! The majority of it is to cease and desist their, then, current advertising and marketing campaigns.
Why is that?
It was an 80 million dollar company at the time. If this is such a bad product and their claims were SO far from reality, why no fines or payments to a known customer base?
Because it was a negotiated settlement in order for Quaker State / Blue Coral / Slick 50 to get it off of their backs in order to sell the company. Which is exactly what they were trying to do at the time. It just makes business sense. It wasn't in their best business interests to fight it out. Any business attorney would take that "negotiated" deal. The order has no teeth and is therefore worthless, except to the higher ups at the FTC who look like they are doing something of value or to people who don't really understand what is happening.
http://www.derrikecope.com/wcup/98/pennzoilquaker.htm
So, Quaker State / Slick 50 / Blue Coral were later bought out by Pennsoil, who sold and installed Slick 50 in millions of people'* cars at it'* Jiffy Lube stations. Wait no FTC actions there?
More recently that whole company (3 Billion a year or more in revenue) was bought up by Shell Oil, an even larger company. They still sell the products, still make claims that it improves the lubrication of the engines. If it was so bad, why would it still be on the market and how can they still make these claims?
http://www.slick50.com/Product_Pages/Products.html
Please, read and understand the fine print on these quotes from the FTC and please try to understand business logic before you jump to conclusions.
The bottom line is that it WORKS for some people. You don't put it in to hide or fix a problem. You put it in to help prevent a problem in the future. If you WANT to that is.
Oh, my God, people here can use Google!?!?! Wait, I'm sure there are hundreds of websites that say there is no God, so you don't believe in God either because some
web sites say that there is no God? (Actually more. Google: Results 1 - 50 of about 205,000,000 for "no god". (0.28 seconds) )
and this means what to you?
http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/s50com.html
take it up with the FTC
http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/s50com.html
take it up with the FTC
I'm sorry if you can't actually understand what was going on and read between the lines on that paperwork above. Anyone who ever bought Slick 50 would know that there is a warranty that comes with it. You send them your personal information, when you bought the stuff, what kind of car you have, mileage, etc. Then if any oil related problem happens to affect your engine, you can submit your receipts and (maybe) get it covered by the makers of Slick 50.
Now, I'm not saying that because it proves that Slick 50 works, I'm saying this because it proves that Slick 50 has a good handle on it'* customers. Their names, addresses, etc. This is important. Because they could not claim to not know who their customers were in order to potentially pay them if the FTC said to do that.
In reading the FTC "order" (the part of that document that has teeth), do they say that they have actually done damage to their customers? No. Do they say that they need to reimburse or pay their customers for fraud? No. Is there any action listed in the order that forces them to make ANY monetary exchange at all, including fines to the Govt/FTC/Etc., or repayments to "affected" consumers? No! The majority of it is to cease and desist their, then, current advertising and marketing campaigns.
Why is that?
It was an 80 million dollar company at the time. If this is such a bad product and their claims were SO far from reality, why no fines or payments to a known customer base?
Because it was a negotiated settlement in order for Quaker State / Blue Coral / Slick 50 to get it off of their backs in order to sell the company. Which is exactly what they were trying to do at the time. It just makes business sense. It wasn't in their best business interests to fight it out. Any business attorney would take that "negotiated" deal. The order has no teeth and is therefore worthless, except to the higher ups at the FTC who look like they are doing something of value or to people who don't really understand what is happening.
http://www.derrikecope.com/wcup/98/pennzoilquaker.htm
So, Quaker State / Slick 50 / Blue Coral were later bought out by Pennsoil, who sold and installed Slick 50 in millions of people'* cars at it'* Jiffy Lube stations. Wait no FTC actions there?
More recently that whole company (3 Billion a year or more in revenue) was bought up by Shell Oil, an even larger company. They still sell the products, still make claims that it improves the lubrication of the engines. If it was so bad, why would it still be on the market and how can they still make these claims?
http://www.slick50.com/Product_Pages/Products.html
Please, read and understand the fine print on these quotes from the FTC and please try to understand business logic before you jump to conclusions.
The bottom line is that it WORKS for some people. You don't put it in to hide or fix a problem. You put it in to help prevent a problem in the future. If you WANT to that is.
12-23-2006, 01:19 PM
#38
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Originally Posted by willwren
Chip, lose the attitude. We're presenting two sides of a debate here, not trying to end the world.
Note that most of us don't get all worked up over this.
Note that most of us don't get all worked up over this.
the stuff is crap,,, nuff said.....
12-23-2006, 01:35 PM
#39
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 3,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some of us just have our own opinions about everything
like, IMO, slick 50 is just over priced oil that claims to fix/prevent things that can already be prevented by regular maintenance
like, IMO, slick 50 is just over priced oil that claims to fix/prevent things that can already be prevented by regular maintenance
12-23-2006, 01:49 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by GoldenBullet
some of us just have our own opinions about everything
like, IMO, slick 50 is just over priced oil that claims to fix/prevent things that can already be prevented by regular maintenance
like, IMO, slick 50 is just over priced oil that claims to fix/prevent things that can already be prevented by regular maintenance
we took apart Brads( Sandrocks ) Bad 3800, Spun a bearing.... At 175k the motor Looks great on the inside... Eeven the cylinder bores look great... And we have no idea how bad the car was abused before he got it... I doub't the car ever had anything other than Dino.. The Bearings the did not spin, looked good and so did the journals...
The only reason I even ended up with slick 50, is to get the RainX wipes, Fuel system formula( Yes I do like the Slick 50 Fuel system formula )... I bought those in a bundle when they were on sale for $12... We used the Quakerstate oil for everything from Honing cylinders, to soaking Lifters...
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote