Slick50 UOA

Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
2,435
Location
Mizzou-land
Has anyone here ever seen a UOA after Slick50 use? I have heard that Briggs&Stratton showed more wear. I understand the issues - solids don't belown in oil, ect. But, I have never seen a Slick50 UOA and would like to see one?
 
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,336
Location
London, AR
I don't recall any Slick 50 UOA's. But we have a member, #147, deepsquat, that has some tremendous UOA's using a bypass filter with long drains. In fact he did one with TUFOIL, which at that time he used it, PTFE was a major component. It is not used very heavy now in TUFOIL. In fact, so low not worth mentioning. UOA w/TUFOIL
 

blupupher

Site Donor 2021
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
7,175
Location
Katy, Republic of Texas
I doube anyone here would use slick 50, much less get a UOA done on it. I guess maybe someone added it then came here and wanted to see what was happening....
 

GMorg

Thread starter
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
2,435
Location
Mizzou-land
59 Vetteman, thanks, I didn't know that TUFOIL was a teflon additive. I'll have a look at the UOA. wavinwayne, I am not trying to prove anything to anyone, I am looking for data. Each data point does count as one data point. I too can count to one. If the data are out there, ignoring it because each incident is a single data point is not logical to me. A collection of data points may actually make a data set. blupupher, I thought that the anti-teflon conviction may be backed by some data here. To all, I am not trying to start an argument. I am looking for the proof of the many strong convictions against solids in engine oil.
 
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,336
Location
London, AR
TUFOIL's claim to fame was their teflon would stay suspended in the oil and not settle out like it did in Slick 50. Since the big uproar over teflon, TUFOIL has reduced it to a minimal, so small in fact it is probably less that .1%. I think just enough to say it still has PTFE. Slick 50 was reformulated a couple times since Petrolon was bought out by Quaker State. When QS was bought by Pennzoil, all settlements were made to all govt. parties and now the status since SOPUS bought QS/Pennz is that Slick 50 is a viable product. I am not defending Slick 50, but todays product is 95% different that the initial Slick 50 from the late 70's. To put it very simply, Slick 50 today is a good product, and has good additives. (My source for this is solid) I may in the very near future buy a can and have a UOA done on it. I am not naive enough to think that the stigma will wear off for BITOG members, but at one time Slick 50 was a $50M a year business and may be that or more, I really don't know. Remember the purchasing public does and will continue to buy Slick 50. It has survived for over 30 years and from my info, the future of Slick 50 is solid. [Smile]
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
3,833
Location
NEPA
Get ready for ...Slick 60! lol, Slick 50 is a good product, you just have to shake it before pouring. [Roll Eyes]
 
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,336
Location
London, AR
The new Slick 50 is more homogenized, for lack of a better word. I think the shaking days are over. GMorg, Years ago, people would scrape the 1/4 inch of teflon covering the bottom of the nice shiny metal cans of Slick 50. Just pour it down the crankcase with some oil. The teflon would harden and cause small globs of burned mess (burned as in dried out). These globs were big enough at times that they would plug the oil drain and slow the drain down to a stream of dripping oil rather than a flow of oil. This would cause leaks in the rear main seal as the burned teflon would circulate before it went to the oil pan. Remember, a person wanted all the additives to go in the oil. Just like members now see some in the bottom of some oils, they shake until they get it all. Same scenario 30 years ago. Other that leaks on the rear mains, and some plugged oil galley holes, not a lot of bad, other that it sold for $34.95 quart in 1978 and more in later years. Then the cheap stuff came on the market a few years later and was the same, teflon would not stay in suspension. No horror stories, just that the product did not perform as stated. You can't bond teflon to metal in low heat situations. And an engine is low heat compared to the heat it takes to bond the stuff. But all that is now water under the bridge. New product essentially on the market now. Would I use it? I have no reason to use it. I am satisfied how my engines perform with my present routine.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
283
Location
uk
GMorg Synlube 33% by volume of colloidal solids (Graphite, PTFE – Teflon, Moly). UOA on Noria.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,801
Location
Pottstown, PA
Yes, if you check (assuming that the MSDS/PDS is functioning on the SOPUS site) the various Slick50® offerings, they may not contain any PFTE at all these days. There are a ton of products under that lable. Many are not stocked on the shelves of your traditional outlets. Many are "professional grade" and are targetting the trade. Yes, teflon is a hard solid below 500F. We extruded it @ 550F for it to be liquid enough to form tubing. Extremely hard on the feed screws and internals of the extrusion machinery ..even the specialty alloys would wear eventually. I cannot see it and oil existing at the same temperatures for teflon to be in solution. Your oil would be asphalt/coak well before teflon was liquid enough, imo.
 
Top