In recent posts, some people have stated that newer Slick 50 oil treatment isn't harmful to engines b/c they have managed to get the teflon particles small enoungh to not harm an engine. On a discussion forum for the oil life study, I found this information on SynLube Oil about the teflon in it - I'm assuming it is the same process/substance that is now in Slick 50:
"SynLube does contain PTFE but it is not a question of whether there is PTFE in the
oil that's critical. It is its implementation in the lubricant that's important.
PTFE comes in a number of different forms and this is extemely important as to
whether the PTFE is helpful or detrimental to the engine. I discussed this with Miro
Kefurt of SynLube who had the following comments:
"We do not use DuPont since they do not have Teflon in "colloidal" size, but they
have other products such as Fluon, and few others, that if you take time to go to
DuPont site you will find are specifically made for use in oil additives.
We use Nanoflon which is 0.3 to 1.2 microns [red blood cells are 7.5 microns] and
looks like an egg under 400X magnification, both SIZE, SHAPE and surface charge make
[a] difference.
The MAJOR reason why we use PTFE in SynLube is that engines have [a] measurable
reduction in noise (dB levels), as for wear reduction, in [an] "objective" controlled
test we would have to run 15 to 30 vehicles for 15 years to have "scientifically" and
"statistically" recognized proof.
For now 22 years of research and over 45,000 cars that have our products in them are
good enough proof both for us and for [the] FTC.
[Fifteen] years ago DuPont Teflon were chips from rod machining in 400 mesh size and
they indeed block filters and settle in oil pan they are 2,000 to 2,500 times LARGER
than the Nanoflon in SynLube - and further their surface charge is uneven so they
tend to agglomerate to much bigger globs even visible by naked eye. ..."
SynLube implementation of colloidal solids is very important because the solids do
not fall out of suspension because SynLube is a hydrophilic sol, that is the solids
are electrically attracted to the liquid lubricants at the molecular level. The
problems that arose with products like Petrolon (Slick 50) do not apply with SynLube.
One final point: SynLube's website is a bit unfortunate. Miro's a lubrication
specialist not a webmaster. His means of communication is a bit idiosyncratic too.
Still I would contend that his website is worth a second look. He offers a wealth of
objective information about viscosity principles and other information which I
believe to be very valuable for anyone interested in knowing more about lubrication.
One could spend hours reading all this information. When I was considering SynLube,
I had many of the same reservations you and others have expressed. Reading the
information on his site gave me confidence that the SynLube formulation makes sense."
Does this mean that lubricants that use this form may actually be beneficial to engines? Even thought they mention the problem with Slick 50, if it uses this new form, maybe it is now a good treatment? Any chemists want to chime in on this one?
"SynLube does contain PTFE but it is not a question of whether there is PTFE in the
oil that's critical. It is its implementation in the lubricant that's important.
PTFE comes in a number of different forms and this is extemely important as to
whether the PTFE is helpful or detrimental to the engine. I discussed this with Miro
Kefurt of SynLube who had the following comments:
"We do not use DuPont since they do not have Teflon in "colloidal" size, but they
have other products such as Fluon, and few others, that if you take time to go to
DuPont site you will find are specifically made for use in oil additives.
We use Nanoflon which is 0.3 to 1.2 microns [red blood cells are 7.5 microns] and
looks like an egg under 400X magnification, both SIZE, SHAPE and surface charge make
[a] difference.
The MAJOR reason why we use PTFE in SynLube is that engines have [a] measurable
reduction in noise (dB levels), as for wear reduction, in [an] "objective" controlled
test we would have to run 15 to 30 vehicles for 15 years to have "scientifically" and
"statistically" recognized proof.
For now 22 years of research and over 45,000 cars that have our products in them are
good enough proof both for us and for [the] FTC.
[Fifteen] years ago DuPont Teflon were chips from rod machining in 400 mesh size and
they indeed block filters and settle in oil pan they are 2,000 to 2,500 times LARGER
than the Nanoflon in SynLube - and further their surface charge is uneven so they
tend to agglomerate to much bigger globs even visible by naked eye. ..."
SynLube implementation of colloidal solids is very important because the solids do
not fall out of suspension because SynLube is a hydrophilic sol, that is the solids
are electrically attracted to the liquid lubricants at the molecular level. The
problems that arose with products like Petrolon (Slick 50) do not apply with SynLube.
One final point: SynLube's website is a bit unfortunate. Miro's a lubrication
specialist not a webmaster. His means of communication is a bit idiosyncratic too.
Still I would contend that his website is worth a second look. He offers a wealth of
objective information about viscosity principles and other information which I
believe to be very valuable for anyone interested in knowing more about lubrication.
One could spend hours reading all this information. When I was considering SynLube,
I had many of the same reservations you and others have expressed. Reading the
information on his site gave me confidence that the SynLube formulation makes sense."
Does this mean that lubricants that use this form may actually be beneficial to engines? Even thought they mention the problem with Slick 50, if it uses this new form, maybe it is now a good treatment? Any chemists want to chime in on this one?