No arguments about that one. From a personal experience with Slick-50:
My old Camaro BB Chevy was built with graphite treatment on all moving parts as
well as running Arco Graphite oil after initial break-in. After 40K miles on
the engine (with alternating graphite oil changes) I decided to try Slick-50
and put it to the test (this was back in '89/'90). No changes on the Dyno, no
changes in 1/4 mile times, and no changes in MPG. I called up Slick-50 and
after some bitching with two of their techs, they admitted that Slick-50 can't
stick to any surface that's been treated with Graphite..."It's just too
slippery".
Teflon also is known to break down in a vacuum (cylinders are subjected to a
vacuum anyway unless under boost) so it won't work very well as a "protection".
Stick with regular oil changes and you won't have any problems. (I've got
a '69 Javelin that's NEVER seen any "Super Lubes"...just regular oil changes
and the wear on the bearings, crank, rods, cam, etc., were almost minimal atr
185K miles. (The engine was rebuilt at 185K due to a broken valve.)
- Bernd
> In a message dated 10/9/00 10:10:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> sedwards@SUNGARDRS.COM writes:
>
> > What is the recommended break in period for an engine (4.7l) prior to adding
> > sometype of additive such as Dura Lube or Slick 50?
>
> DO NOT ADD THAT TO YOUR ENGINE! About two weeks ago I read a website
> dedicated to oil additives and their advantages and disadvantages. They came
> to the conclusion that it's all a gimmick, same as the splitfire fiasco of a
> few years ago. In fact all those companies are currently facing large
> lawsuits due to unsubstantiated claims of performance.
> Even an engine company decided to do it's own test, much like they do in
> those infomercials. They took several engines straight off of thier assembly
> line, and ran them for 24 hours apiece. One with standard dino oil, the
> others oil with the additives mentioned above. Then they drained the oil and
> ran the engines until they seized. When inspected, all engines had the
> expected wear and scoring on the cylinder walls. The engines with the
> additives however had serious score marks on the rod bearings, and various
> other places of contact. The company's conclusion was that the additives were
> totally ineffective, and possibly even detrimental to engine performance.
> The way I see it, the more additives you have in an oil, the less oil you
> have. And it's the oil that does the work of protecting your engine
> regardless of what other crap you put into it.
> As far as Teflon in the oil, that's useless as well. The company that
> produces teflon (3M I believe) publicly states that not only do they believe
> teflon is ineffective as an oil additive, but that it may even hurt the oil's
> ability to do it's job, and has refused to sell it's product to the oil
> market.
> Which leaves oil companies buying teflon from other sources, usually
> overseas companies that did not intend for their product to be used as an oil
> additive. The size of the teflon particles are usually large, so large in
> fact that sometimes the filter catches them, and clogs up immediately. Now
> you just paid for teflon that's not only no longer in your oil, but is
> clogging up the filter and restricting the oil from where you need it. Double
> whammy.
> I wish I remember the name of the site because I believe it's invaluable
> information. I'll see if I can hunt around for it today.
> I was considering one of those additives until I read this site. I hope
> you guys follow suit. Standard oil had been used to lubricate engines for 100
> years, it can't possibly be so bad that we need to throw an additional $50
> worth of crap into it.
>
> -Austin
> Vipertruck
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:55:54 EDT