Has anybody used this oil and what are you results
Quaker state high mileage oil with slick 50
- Thread starter ramp1950
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 591
sounds like a recipe for sludge to me.
OK, a quick history of Slick 50
First they fought battles with Du pont, who did not want product, Teflon used fraudulently.
Then, they made unsubstantiated marketing claims, that ultimately proved totally false to sell their product to an unsuspecting public.
Finally the courts brought them down. Fraud is fraud is fraud, everyone involved knew it was fraud. Penalties were paid, but the marketing image lives on.
why support your neighborhood drug dealer, or Mr. Madoff, Kenneth Lay and Slick 50? Criminals are criminals!
First they fought battles with Du pont, who did not want product, Teflon used fraudulently.
Then, they made unsubstantiated marketing claims, that ultimately proved totally false to sell their product to an unsuspecting public.
Finally the courts brought them down. Fraud is fraud is fraud, everyone involved knew it was fraud. Penalties were paid, but the marketing image lives on.
why support your neighborhood drug dealer, or Mr. Madoff, Kenneth Lay and Slick 50? Criminals are criminals!
Sounds like SLICK marketing to me.
Originally Posted By: fsskier
OK, a quick history of Slick 50
First they fought battles with Du pont, who did not want product, Teflon used fraudulently.
Then, they made unsubstantiated marketing claims, that ultimately proved totally false to sell their product to an unsuspecting public.
Finally the courts brought them down. Fraud is fraud is fraud, everyone involved knew it was fraud. Penalties were paid, but the marketing image lives on.
why support your neighborhood drug dealer, or Mr. Madoff, Kenneth Lay and Slick 50? Criminals are criminals!
That's real good. Lets hang them at high noon, or even better, off with their heads.
But I really suggest you do all your homework before the lynch mob is formed.
OK, a quick history of Slick 50
First they fought battles with Du pont, who did not want product, Teflon used fraudulently.
Then, they made unsubstantiated marketing claims, that ultimately proved totally false to sell their product to an unsuspecting public.
Finally the courts brought them down. Fraud is fraud is fraud, everyone involved knew it was fraud. Penalties were paid, but the marketing image lives on.
why support your neighborhood drug dealer, or Mr. Madoff, Kenneth Lay and Slick 50? Criminals are criminals!
That's real good. Lets hang them at high noon, or even better, off with their heads.
But I really suggest you do all your homework before the lynch mob is formed.
No lynch mob here, but I would not reward manufacturers for
intentional fraud. The court depositions made it pretty clear that the indivuals involved knew it did not work, and could cause engine damage under certain conditions.
The absolute worst damage was caused by those that believed that you could actually drive the car to a service station after the oil light came on when using Slick 50. They, of course lost their engines. Sadly, many came forward with this outcome.
It was interesting to see who actually tested the stuff.
GM
Ford
Briggs and Stratton: They were lured in because Slick 50 recommended the use of their motors in "sideshow demonstrations"
wherein the oil was drained out and then the motor was restarted and ran for a while. Interestingly, Briggs found that the motors would run longer without Slick 50 then with it (after the crankcase was drained out) and the damage was more severe with Slick 50. With it, both the piston and rod bearing seized up, without it only one did - I no longer remember which. (sorry, this is clearly a research failure)
The US ARMY vehicle command: Tested for the same reason as Briggs, if a motor could run even a couple of minutes longer after the pan was blown off it could be very valuable.
Again, no luck
Then, there was the long "epa cycle"tests actually conducted by Slick 50. They actually showed that ordinary energy conserving motor oil gave better mileage than oil with Slick 50 in it.
Like Mr. Madoff, those who stood to profit knew they were clipping the customer.
intentional fraud. The court depositions made it pretty clear that the indivuals involved knew it did not work, and could cause engine damage under certain conditions.
The absolute worst damage was caused by those that believed that you could actually drive the car to a service station after the oil light came on when using Slick 50. They, of course lost their engines. Sadly, many came forward with this outcome.
It was interesting to see who actually tested the stuff.
GM
Ford
Briggs and Stratton: They were lured in because Slick 50 recommended the use of their motors in "sideshow demonstrations"
wherein the oil was drained out and then the motor was restarted and ran for a while. Interestingly, Briggs found that the motors would run longer without Slick 50 then with it (after the crankcase was drained out) and the damage was more severe with Slick 50. With it, both the piston and rod bearing seized up, without it only one did - I no longer remember which. (sorry, this is clearly a research failure)
The US ARMY vehicle command: Tested for the same reason as Briggs, if a motor could run even a couple of minutes longer after the pan was blown off it could be very valuable.
Again, no luck
Then, there was the long "epa cycle"tests actually conducted by Slick 50. They actually showed that ordinary energy conserving motor oil gave better mileage than oil with Slick 50 in it.
Like Mr. Madoff, those who stood to profit knew they were clipping the customer.
You are talking about the old original Slick 50. Slick 50 is now just a name and contains "no" PTFE/Teflon in it. When Pennzoil inherited the product when they purchased the Quaker State Company they started changing the formulation and after Shell bought Pennzoil-Quaker State Company the final changes were made. All Slick 50 is now is a 10W-30 carrier oil with an over load of AW and FM added. So as I said, do some homework before you slander the company that now just owns the name.
Oh, the QS High Mileage the OP saw was a product they no longer made. Old news.
Oh, the QS High Mileage the OP saw was a product they no longer made. Old news.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
You are talking about the old original Slick 50. Slick 50 is now just a name and contains "no" PTFE/Teflon in it. When Pennzoil inherited the product when they purchased the Quaker State Company they started changing the formulation and after Shell bought Pennzoil-Quaker State Company the final changes were made. All Slick 50 is now is a 10W-30 carrier oil with an over load of AW and FM added. So as I said, do some homework before you slander the company that now just owns the name.
Oh, the QS High Mileage the OP saw was a product they no longer made. Old news.
LOL. Get em Johnny. What does AW stand for?
You are talking about the old original Slick 50. Slick 50 is now just a name and contains "no" PTFE/Teflon in it. When Pennzoil inherited the product when they purchased the Quaker State Company they started changing the formulation and after Shell bought Pennzoil-Quaker State Company the final changes were made. All Slick 50 is now is a 10W-30 carrier oil with an over load of AW and FM added. So as I said, do some homework before you slander the company that now just owns the name.
Oh, the QS High Mileage the OP saw was a product they no longer made. Old news.
LOL. Get em Johnny. What does AW stand for?
I am well aware that the Teflon based product is off the market.
But why would anyone use that name?
Likely the marketing types that want to use the Slick 50 name hope to capture those that were mislead by the orginal marketing campaign. This seems like condoning, rather than condemming fraud - provided it is profitable to do so. A blemish on a company that I otherwise have great respect for - Pennzoil.
And, I still want that brat when I come up to Wausau.
But why would anyone use that name?
Likely the marketing types that want to use the Slick 50 name hope to capture those that were mislead by the orginal marketing campaign. This seems like condoning, rather than condemming fraud - provided it is profitable to do so. A blemish on a company that I otherwise have great respect for - Pennzoil.
And, I still want that brat when I come up to Wausau.
I just poured this oil into my 1994 Explorer V-6 with 195,000 miles on Friday. I'll run it for a 5000 mile OCI. I like to root for the underdogs.
LOL. Get em Johnny. What does AW stand for?[/quote]
anti-wear
anti-wear
Originally Posted By: fsskier
I am well aware that the Teflon based product is off the market.
But why would anyone use that name?
Likely the marketing types that want to use the Slick 50 name hope to capture those that were mislead by the orginal marketing campaign. This seems like condoning, rather than condemming fraud - provided it is profitable to do so. A blemish on a company that I otherwise have great respect for - Pennzoil.
And, I still want that brat when I come up to Wausau.
And you are still welcome to the brat when you come.
I am well aware that the Teflon based product is off the market.
But why would anyone use that name?
Likely the marketing types that want to use the Slick 50 name hope to capture those that were mislead by the orginal marketing campaign. This seems like condoning, rather than condemming fraud - provided it is profitable to do so. A blemish on a company that I otherwise have great respect for - Pennzoil.
And, I still want that brat when I come up to Wausau.
And you are still welcome to the brat when you come.
I have used that QS high mileage stuff, and my father has too. We had no issues with it. All 2 cars Ford Tauruses both went for 5,000 mile OCI's. All I can tell you is that it ran just fine in those cars for that length of OCI.
A better post would be "What is Slick 50 Today?"
Because I am not sure anyone has any numbers to show.
Right now my father and I have 3 cars doing Auto RX runs. I have seen it clean up stuff I am not sure anything else could.
I might buy more of the "HM QS with Slick 50" in the future, only because it was discontinued like 6 months ago and the left overs are starting to be marked down to clearance pricing.
I am pretty sure that whatever "Slick 50" is these days is rather harmless and just a marketing thing. I wouldent worry about running it for a 5,000 mile OCI.
A better post would be "What is Slick 50 Today?"
Because I am not sure anyone has any numbers to show.
Right now my father and I have 3 cars doing Auto RX runs. I have seen it clean up stuff I am not sure anything else could.
I might buy more of the "HM QS with Slick 50" in the future, only because it was discontinued like 6 months ago and the left overs are starting to be marked down to clearance pricing.
I am pretty sure that whatever "Slick 50" is these days is rather harmless and just a marketing thing. I wouldent worry about running it for a 5,000 mile OCI.
Is there any benefit to buying a cheap dino oil and adding Slick 50, over say buying a good (lower priced) synthetic?
I ran slick 50 in two cars in the early 1990's. I worked for a garage and we were all curious about the stuff. My car, a 1988 Mustang and my buddies car a 1970 Mercury Marquis. I didnt notice anything with my car and it ran well over 150,000 miles. My buddies mercury with a 351W actually did get better gas mileage.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Hitzy
Is there any benefit to buying a cheap dino oil and adding Slick 50, over say buying a good (lower priced) synthetic?
Nope!
But I wouldn't hesitate to use Quaker State High Mileage oil with the Slick50 on the bottle. Though the lack of the API certification does give me pause...
Is there any benefit to buying a cheap dino oil and adding Slick 50, over say buying a good (lower priced) synthetic?
Nope!
But I wouldn't hesitate to use Quaker State High Mileage oil with the Slick50 on the bottle. Though the lack of the API certification does give me pause...
- Status
Similar threads
