Does the 250,000 mile quaker state warranty still apply if you use their "slick" oil?
Quaker State comes with TEFLON 50 in it??
- Thread starter bxd20
- Start date
- Status
I don't know what your problem is, but just because they sell Slick 50 doesn't mean that they are selling an inferior oil. Just by looking at UOAs and VOAs Pennzoil is one of the better oils out there. Plus your analogy makes no sense. It's like saying I don't like Fram oil filters so I won't buy its air filters either.
Not only that, but we have no real evidence, backed up by UOA, that Slick 50 is actually a bad product. It may have been in years past, but I don't think it is the same product that it used to be.
Heck, QS W/Slick 50 would probably work wonderfully in an old oil burner like the one on the bottle. What is that, a late 60's Chevy?......or an Oldsmobile???
Here, Larry, let me help you out with applying this guilty-by-association principle!
Don't just stop at the Quaker State/Pennzoil PCMO's, include the other Sopus brands:
Gumout
Westley's
Rain-X
Fix-a-Flat
Black Magic
Blue Coral
Outlaw
And, Gee, let's not let Shell V-Power gasoline or the Shell Rotella T commercial lubricants off the hook, either!
I love the self-righteous attitudes toward marginal brands. Ask yourself, if *I* were suddenly charged with making a product profitable, even a defunct name brand like Slick 50, what decision about packaging and reformulating be appropriate? Even better, let's say QS or SOPUS GAVE you the Slick 50 name and you had to make a living and feed your family? I suppose Larry would just file it away and do the World a favour.
Where I get my oil changed.
quote:
Originally posted by farrarfan1:
quote:
Originally posted by pbm:
Originally posted by farrarfan1:
[QB] Yep, Quaker state is obviously a terrible oil. Look at these disastrous UOA's.
Farrarfan1: After reading the UOA's I see you
were being sarcastic. As I stated before an ex-coworker of mine had nearly 300k on an 89' Corolla using QS dino almost exclusively.(He may still have the car with 400K for all I know).
I wouldn't hesitate to use QS at all.Yes I was. Quaker State did just fine in the few most recent UOA's I posted from this board. It amuses me when someone comes on here and flat out states they wouldn't recomend "X" brand oil under any circumstances in any engine anywhere in the world based on no factual basis whatsoever.My facts are proven when I worked in a shop that when they changed the oil Quaker State they used all of a sudden timing chains are braking and camshafts going bad. If you don't believe it fine then use Quaker State then!
I'm sold. Forget all those labs tests for specification performance. Some guy had a timing chain break somewhere and might have had QS in the engine. OMG! That will happen to ME if I use QS! I also heard someone somewhere had sludge due to Pennzoil...or was that Castrol? It must have been the oil, engines just don't "have" problems unless the mean 'ol oil companies are ripping us off...somehow.
Larry, Larry. Nothing positive to say about any oil company? I see your GC thread has run it's course.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=51;t=000514
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=51;t=000514
This sounds like the old "switcheroo" trick & the main reason that the bulk tanks of quality quick lube shops are constantly being sampled.
More than likely, the bulk tanks were filled with cheap SA grade oil and sold as Quaker State.
More than likely, the bulk tanks were filled with cheap SA grade oil and sold as Quaker State.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnson994:
quote:
Originally posted by farrarfan1:
quote:
Originally posted by pbm:
Originally posted by farrarfan1:
[QB] Yep, Quaker state is obviously a terrible oil. Look at these disastrous UOA's.
Farrarfan1: After reading the UOA's I see you
were being sarcastic. As I stated before an ex-coworker of mine had nearly 300k on an 89' Corolla using QS dino almost exclusively.(He may still have the car with 400K for all I know).
I wouldn't hesitate to use QS at all.Yes I was. Quaker State did just fine in the few most recent UOA's I posted from this board. It amuses me when someone comes on here and flat out states they wouldn't recomend "X" brand oil under any circumstances in any engine anywhere in the world based on no factual basis whatsoever.My facts are proven when I worked in a shop that when they changed the oil Quaker State they used all of a sudden timing chains are braking and camshafts going bad. If you don't believe it fine then use Quaker State then!You lost me here. Are you saying that the shop you worked in switched to Quaker State and then customers began losing cams and timing belts? If so did they have the oil tested to make sure it was actually Quaker State of the proper viscosity and correct API and ILSAC ratings and if so did your shop contact Shell/Quaker State and work with them to find a soulution? Did anyone determine that the cams and timing belts breaking where actually oil related failures at all? I don't use QS/Pennzoil but one of our regulars here works for Pennzoil and I defer to his opinion without question when it comes to those products.They currently meet the latest API/Ilsac ratings and have shown satisfactory UOA's.
About CG, I was asking. Castrol has mized messages with their marketing vs product content. As for the others my point was just that they, QS, Pensoil and Shell, represent a family of products marketed not for a trend in corporate quality but just marketing with some flash and show. At least products like, say, Chevron have a corporate identity, a level of quality that is consistant across their products. If you have a new application and are using Chevron products and they have a product for you new application, you will have a better idea of what you are getting into. If you are using an oil like Penzoil and see it packaged with Slick 50, you might confuse Slick 50 with a product of the same quality level. Basically the FTC judgement against Slick 50 was for the statements they made. The FTC, basically said, clean up the statements and you can keep selling the stuff. The FTC was trying to protect us from the marketing, not the product. So if you use QS or Penzoil and believe the corporation is a quality orentated operation then you should use Slick 50. Their packaging of the product in places like Pep Boys suggests a bottle of Slick 50, wrapped with quarts of QS or Penzoil, with every oil change. That's what the corporation is saying with their marketing. Maybe I should have been clearer about my intent in my statement, sorry. What I really wanted was comments on how many QS or Penzoil users follow the plan and use Slick 50?
I’ll give this one more shot!
Larry, this is simply left-field logic, that somehow the negatives associated with the Slick 50 FTC ruling from 1997 carry thru & reflect on the current quality of Pennzoil/Quaker State products.
Please actually read the history at the Quaker State site.
http://www.quakerstate.com/pages/about/history.asp
The Pennzoil - Quaker State merger was late 1998, over a year after the 1997 FTC ruling, a process that actually started in 1996.
Slick 50 had sales of $80 million in 1996 when it was bought out by Quaker State, so obviously the market was hot for PTFE engine treatments.
T-Plus, a PTFE engine treatment sold thru K-Mart, was also acquired by Quaker State. But since K-Mart sold T-Plus and Sears and K-Mart merged, do we try and label Sears as a rotten apple?
Another was Valvoline TM-8, and similar to the Quaker State ruling, the FTC ordered Ashland to stop making advertising claims.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1997/10/ashland.htm
STP, in a related incident, was ordered in 1995 to stop making advertising claims.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1995/12/stp.htm
So we can see that the FTC was quite active in the engine oil treatment market segment during the late 90’s.
Let's just drop this assertion that an FTC advertising ruling from the 1990's has any effect on 2005 product quality for any corporation.
Currently, a number of these PTFE products are still quite popular.
- The originator of the Slick50 formulation sells the Xcelplus PTFE engine treatment.
- Radiator Specialty sells the Nu-Power PTFE engine treatment.
- CD-2 sells the Adrenaline Power Restorer with Cerflon (PTFE)
I have no problems with SOPUS marketing a PTFE engine treatment, as this is a legitimate market segment & plenty of people are buying these products & feeling good about dumping them in their engines.
The performance of these products may only be marginal, but let these consumers make their own choices as to how their $'s are spent!
Wow! Self-righteous. If I had to sell Slick 50, I'd find something else to do. That's not self-righteous. Marketing runs business. The technical aspects often get trampled. If not, why this forum to explore what marketing does not tell us.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
