 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / February 2007REPLACEMENT FOR DURALUBE
what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil change? in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these 2 products? Thanks, Ray >what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil change? >in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these 2 products? Oil. A good quality oil. --scott  Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil change? > in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these 2 products? http://www.repairfaq.org/filipg/AUTO/F_Slick_501.html " In a statement issued about ten years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said, "Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal combustion engines." At the time, DuPont threatened legal action against anyone who used the name "Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in an internal combustion engine, and refused to sell its PTFE powders to any one who intended to use them for such purposes. After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming DuPont could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont was forced to once again begin selling their PTFE to the additive producers. The additive makers like to claim this is some kind of "proof' that their products work, when in fact it is nothing more than proof that the American legal ethic of "innocent until proven guilty" is still alive and well. The decision against DuPont involved what is called "restraint of trade." You can't refuse to sell a product to someone just because there is a possibility they might use it for a purpose other than what you intended it for." <...> "The Petrolon test report states, "There was a pressure drop across the oil filter resulting from possible clogging of small passageways." In addition, oil analysis showed that iron contamination doubled after using the treatment, indicating that engine wear didn't go down - it appeared to shoot up." > After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming DuPont > could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont was forced to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > just because there is a possibility they might use it for a purpose > other than what you intended it for." If that's the modern definition of "restraint of trade", then something is seriously wrong with the legal system. If what you're saying is correct, then that means once you invent something and put it on the market, you're forced to sell it to anyone who asks for it and are not allowed to refuse. That's called "coercion". And since you'd essentially be forced to do work for someone without the existence of a prior contract, it can also be called "slavery". SignatureTegger > If that's the modern definition of "restraint of trade", then something is > seriously wrong with the legal system. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > essentially be forced to do work for someone without the existence of a > prior contract, it can also be called "slavery". I am just quoting the FAQ. DuPont should have just quoted an absurdly high price. >> If that's the modern definition of "restraint of trade", then >> something is seriously wrong with the legal system. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I am just quoting the FAQ. Just did some digging myself... I can't find any evidence anywhere else (FTC or otherwise) of any action brought by any Quaker State subsidiary or anybody else alleging "restraint of trade" in the matter of DuPont selling PTFE resins. All I see are the various Internet allegations of such a lawsuit. In fact, just about ALL the Internet hits on this subject appear to quote the SAME source, which is not footnoted or otherwise referenced in any way! I have further determined that refusal of one company to sell to another is not legally considered "restraint of trade". That charge is brought if two or more companies allegedly combine in such a way as to limit competition, or if one company allegedly uses its market position to drive out competitors. In other words, "restraint of trade" is an ANTI-TRUST issue. <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22restraint+of+trade%22+definitio n&btnG=Search> I strongly suspect all those Internet DuPont/PTFE "restraint of trade" quotes are bullshit. It's an "urban legend". SignatureTegger > I can't find any evidence anywhere else (FTC or otherwise) of any > action brought by any Quaker State subsidiary or anybody else > alleging "restraint of trade" in the matter of DuPont selling > PTFE resins. All I see are the various Internet allegations of > such a lawsuit. It's pre-web. I remember it from WAY back. You'll probably need to go through books. >what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil change? >in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these 2 products? Quality oil with no snake oil scam additives. Don www.donsautomotive.com > Thanks, > > Ray RAYMOND <raypaladino@sbcglobal.net> wrote in article <beLxh.3446$MN.2848@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>... > what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil change? > in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these 2 products? I have a chemist friend who suggests that horse urine is an almost-perfect match to the various oil additives on the market today. Lucky for me, I have a neighbor with two horses. Whenever I change my oil, I can simply walk over to his field with a container and wait for one of his horses to "manufacture" a "good oil additive." On the next oil/filter change I'd use Mobil 10-30wt! I'd use a non-detergent oil ie is the oil to use when changing from slick 50 ie slick 50 tends to wash the scum off the cylinder walls - is important that there's at least a thin film of oil-scum to help in heat dissipation or the cooling effect!! Once you've ran at least 3000 miles I'd change to a detergent based oil - Pennzoil, Valvoline or Mobil 1. I'd make sure that I always use the same brand oil and filter. Take note: Citgo is remanufactured oil ie I wouldn't touch that stuff with a 10 foot insulated pole - <grin> Let me just say that I have worked on gas and diesels for 25+ years - A few of my old customers still have their old cars that still use slick 50 - their/those cars still run great!! Don't always listen to the crap you hear on the net - is not always true!! > what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil change? > in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these 2 products? > > Thanks, > > Ray > Let me just say that I have worked on gas and diesels for 25+ > years - A few > of my old customers still have their old cars that still use slick > 50 - > their/those cars still run great!! I have been working on gas and diesel engines for over 35 years. Heck, I have one diesel tractor that is over 25 years old. It is still running strong with the original engine. I've never used anything but OE filters and good quality API certified oil of the correct viscosity and grade in this tractor. Many years ago I did have a good friend who decided to use Slick 50 in his cars (late 70's Bronco and mid 80's Ford wagon). Both ended up in the shop with no oil pressure becasue of plugged oil pump pick-up screens. This was before Slick 50 figured out that if you are going to sell snake oil it is a good idea if does nothing at all as compared to wrecking engines. At least these days Slick 50 is merely worthless. > Don't always listen to the crap you hear on the net - is not always > true!! Especially the crap that recommends Slick 50. Ed Daryl Bryant <sealsforensecure@charterseals.net> wrote in article <tu2dnZipi47gKlrYnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d@giganews.com>... > On the next oil/filter change I'd use Mobil 10-30wt! I'd use a non-detergent > oil ie is the oil to use when changing from slick 50 ie slick 50 tends to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Don't always listen to the crap you hear on the net - is not always true!! Especially self-proclaimed "experts" who........ .....suggest that a "scum" on the cylinder walls somehow contributes to cooling..... ......recommend "snake oils" such as Slick 50 and Duralube..... .......would suggest that a major oil company is, somehow, able to pass off re-refined oil as new without anybody catching on.... Conspiracy theorists, in my opinion, have little grasp on reality. > what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil change? > in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these 2 products? Uhm... Oil? > what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil change? > in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these 2 products? Any comments about the MOLY oil additives out there? >> what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil >> change? in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these >> 2 products? > > Any comments about the MOLY oil additives out there? If you mean "organo-moly", the oil manufacturers are already putting that in their oil. According to what I'm reading, you don't need any more than what's in there from the oil maker. Also according to what I'm reading, apparently the only probable question mark concerning oil additives are very old engines, such as those from the '20s and '30s. It is possible they may need ZDDP added to their oil to make up what was removed for modern catalytic converters, but this is not proved. SignatureTegger > what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil change? > in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these 2 products? If you want something to protect your engine, buy top quality oil. If you want to replicate what Duralube and Slick 50 do.... a cup of beach sand added to the oil is the best bang for the buck. > what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil > change? > in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these 2 > products? Nothing but API Certified oil of the correct viscosity and grade. The following statement is taken directly from an Explorer Owner's Guide: "Do not use supplemental engine oil additives, cleaners or other engine treatments. They are unnecessary and could lead to engine damage that is not covered by Ford warranty." Slick 50 and Duralube have both been admonished by the FTC. Save your money. See: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1999/05/duralub2.htm and http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1996/07/slick.htm . You might also check out the EPA's "Gas Saving and Emission Reduction Devices Evaluation" page at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm . Neither Slick 50 nor Duralube were submitted for evaluation, but why would they be? The manufacturers already knew they were worthless. No one has submitted any new gas saving devices for evaluation for a long time. Why have the EPA expose you as a fraud. Better to not have it in writing. Ed > Slick 50 and Duralube have both been admonished by the FTC. Save your > money. See: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1999/05/duralub2.htm and > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1996/07/slick.htm . As I remember the case, and I have looked at the court records several times over the years, Slick 50 was admonished because they made claims for which they had no proof. Essentially misleading advertisement. The government didnt get into the case of whether the crap worked or not. Slick 50 is still available, the last time I looked, and is now owned by a major petroleum products marketer. Why have > the EPA expose you as a fraud. Better to not have it in writing. Amazing how many devices that are clearly fraudulent are still being sold. The EPA and other governmental groups get involved all too seldom. I am not sure these cases are even within the bailiwick of the EPA. I believe you can still buy the quackery magnetic fuel savers, cyclonic air flow enhancers, etc... And they have been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be worthless. I like Valevoline oil.I have never had any problems with it.Nothing but good quality well known name brand oil goes in my vehicles engines. cuhulin >> Slick 50 and Duralube have both been admonished by the FTC. Save >> your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > government > didnt get into the case of whether the crap worked or not. Right, check the links I posted. Slick 50 made unsupported claims and was enjoined from doing so. > Slick 50 is still available, the last time I looked, and is now > owned by a > major > petroleum products marketer. Shell Oil now owns Slick 50. They got it when they bought Quaker State - Pennzoil. Quaker State bought the original marketing company. I can remember Shell Oil (like most oil companies) preaching against the use of oil additives before they ended up owning Slick 50. I wonder how they justify still selling this crap now. You should read the Slick 50 FAQ at http://www.slick50.com/faq.htm . Notice how carefully they word things. For instance they say "Slick 50® Engine Treatment is designed to protect against friction and heat." They say it is "designed" to do something, not that it actually does anything. Most purveyors of snake oil are careful to not make verifiable claims. The usual technique is to quote happy users. Its not illegal to quote Joe Smith who says, "I've used Slick 50 for 20 years and get 100% better mileage." Slick 50 isn't claiming anything, and they don't have to verify whether Joe Smith is lying or just doing a poor judge of evaluating the product. >> Why have >> the EPA expose you as a fraud. Better to not have it in writing. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > shadow > of a doubt, to be worthless. People want to believe. Ed > verifiable claims. The usual technique is to quote happy users. Its > not illegal to quote Joe Smith who says, "I've used Slick 50 for 20 > years and get 100% better mileage." Slick 50 isn't claiming anything, > and they don't have to verify whether Joe Smith is lying or just doing > a poor judge of evaluating the product. Does 'Joe Smith' actually need to exist? I would tend to thing that those are just created testimonials... make up a letter, mail it from somewhere, put it in the file. "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Does 'Joe Smith' actually need to exist? I would tend to thing that > those are just created testimonials... make up a letter, mail it from > somewhere, put it in the file. If Joe Smith doesn't exist, I would think the element of deceptive advertising is back in play. We have an extremely tough deceptive trade practises act here in Texas. If you say it, it had better be true. Or you can easily get nailed. On 2/6/07 11:02 AM, in article Pw2yh.74143$qO4.23338@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net, "HLS@nospam.nix" > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> Does 'Joe Smith' actually need to exist? I would tend to thing that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Texas. If you say it, it had better be true. Or you can easily get > nailed. What? Texas? Since when does Texas have tough deceptive trade laws? They certainly don't enforce them if there are any. I've been living here since '73 and it has never been anything but a "caveat emptor" place when compared to practically any other state. > What? Texas? Since when does Texas have tough deceptive trade laws? They > certainly don't enforce them if there are any. I've been living here since > '73 and it has never been anything but a "caveat emptor" place when compared > to practically any other state. I have lived here much of my life, and the laws are on the books. Now, the state does not normally investigate and prosecute. You are responsible for reporting and filing complaints. And when you do so in good faith, you will almost always win. I have. You need to make yourself aware of the main tenets of this legislations. I go from memory but some of them include.. (1) If you advertise or claim that a product or service will fix your problem, it had better do it. Otherwise, you may seek redress. (2) If you accept credit cards, you may NOT charge a surcharge to use it. You may, however, offer a discount for cash. (3) You may not call yourself, or your company, a corporation if, in fact, you are not incorporated. This is a breach of law. There are several parts of this law, and I suggest you get a copy, or a book (there is an excellent one on the market) that outlines every phase of this law. University of Houston law professor was the author, I think. You have to bring charges, but you can expect your damages, times 3. I spent ten months in 1965 at Fort Hood,Texas.I wasen't too interested (at the time) in deceptive trade practices though. cuhulin >>What? Texas? Since when does Texas have tough deceptive trade laws? Forever (practically) > I have lived here much of my life, and the laws are on the books. Now, the > state [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > always > win. Yep, HLS is right. I've lived here my WHOLE life and I've seen it happen. It doesn't happen often, but when it does it can get big in a hurry. The last one I remember was when all sorts of places were advertising "10 minute state inspections" and a BUNCH of them got nailed for consistently taking longer than 10 minutes. Nowdays most of them have generic names like "fast sticker" or "sticker stop" and its extremely rare to see one that actually makes a claim about how long they'll take. A bunch of years ago,every once in a while there was one of those snake oil commercials on late night tv.Some kind of phoney baloney snake oil and they would pour the snake oil in an engine and then drain all of the oil out of the engine.Then with the engine cranked back up and running,they would dump dirt and stuff into the engine and the engine would keep on running and running.Of course I never fell for that phoney baloney snake oil. cuhulin Well fellow sports fans what do you think of this fine fisherman "RAYMOND". He seems to be using some good Duralube" bait and landed quite a few fish from the pond today. It's good that he is practicing catch and release though. How about a big hand for him folks..... Sorry just couldn't resist it. SignatureSteve W. >what is a good replacement for slick50 or duralube for my next oil change? >in other words, what else can be recommended instead of these 2 products? > > Thanks, > > Ray I have not used either slick 50 or duralube's oil additives. I have used Tufoil along with Mobil 1 oil in all vehicles and other engine driven equipment for the last 15+ years with no oil related failures. I usually keep vehicles longer than most and all (I have kept that long) have reached 200,000+ miles with no excessive oil consumption or blue exhaust smoke. I think Tufoil has moly and ptfe and maybe other stuff as well. I do not extend the oil change interval and change oil within the factory recommended timeframe's. I use regular oil in new vehicles for the first 500-1000 miles for break in, then switch to the Tufoil/Mobil 1 mixture. Google for Tufoil for additional info, They don't do much mass media marketing but they do have a web site that has some test info and the usual testimonials from users. I am not affiliated with either of the products I mentioned above other than being a happy consumer of their products. best regards, Joe. > Google for Tufoil for additional info, I did, and found someone (admittedly an Amsoil wonk) asserting that as of January 2006, the TufOil site contained the direct quote "Tufoil's PTFE suspension works itself deep in to the most limited contact areas unaffected by other lubricants." Signature"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.