Prev: Wanted Ford 289 cu in Motor
Next: Converting V8 Holden to gas qury
From: John_H on 25 Jun 2008 20:04
OzOne wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:35:06 +1000, John_H <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>Before you buy any more of it, you might go to.... http://www.ftc.gov/
>>and search on *slick 50*.
>
>There you'll see how the little guy got squashed by GovCo because he
>didn't have the cash to fight an endless suply of taxpayers mone.

Nah... that was the Branch Davidians (and around the same era)!
Slick 50 is more about big oil sticking it up the American consumer.

I only got 12,727 hits for *slick 50* on the ftc site BTW. :)

--
John H
From: D&M JOHNSTON on 26 Jun 2008 03:59

"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message
news:q2e5649e7bokmuvo1n1h5jkb43sspe36pe(a)4ax.com...
> D&M JOHNSTON wrote:
>>
>>I haven't seen Slick 50 for many years and wonder if it is still available
>>here in Australia because I'd like to get some. I wonder if this product
>>would now be suitable in more modern multivalve engines that run thinner
>>more sophisticated oils? And, I wonder if it'd be the same formula?
>
> They did encounter a few problems with the Federal Trade Commission
> over their claims... which I think was after Dupont refused to supply
> them with Teflon (which they deemed to be unsuitable for the purpose
> it was being used).
>
> Before you buy any more of it, you might go to.... http://www.ftc.gov/
> and search on *slick 50*.
>
> --
> John H

Thanks for that John but after reading some of the complaints, it sounds a
lot like the Oil companies not liking the fact that their product was shown
up somewhat. The slick 50 mob may have made these claims but my experience
with the product showed me that many of the claims were relevent and I for
one had great results.
When I first heard of the product in the early 80's, before i put it in my
motor, a friend's family who was running Slick 50 in their Mercedes Benz
Fleet of prime movers (5 trucks) were keeping a log record over a period of
6 month intervals comparing Km's to Fuel used, noting any differences in
operations, running characteristics etc and found that the savings were very
substantial and because they've been in business for many decades, were also
able to note records of engine pulldowns from 1978-1982 and their results
proved to me that this stuff should do what it says. Well after running my
truck for 4 years . 3 yrs with Slick 50 treatment, I saved heaps in fuel
costs with no filter problems or anything.
Only had to treat it once with an oil change and that was it, after each
other oil change which in my case was every 5000 kms- 7000kms i just kept on
getting improvements in running costs.
I don't think it can actually give you more horsepower but it did make the
engine run a lot more freely so less of the pedal movement to keep it
moving.

Cheers

DJ


From: Noddy on 26 Jun 2008 06:13

"D&M JOHNSTON" <mrjay1(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:48634c77$0$30462$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...

> I don't think it can actually give you more horsepower but it did make the
> engine run a lot more freely so less of the pedal movement to keep it
> moving.

I'm not doubting what you say (well, I am, but I'm trying to be nice :), but
there has never been a single irrefutable scientific test that proved that
such products (and I'm not just singling out slick 50) ever made the
slightest bit of difference to any engine at all.

On the other hand, there's been *thousands* of complaints against companies
like slick 50, Nulon and others from customers who found that the products
didn't live up to the manufacturers claims.

Make of that what you will.

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: D&M JOHNSTON on 26 Jun 2008 06:50

"Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:48636bb3$0$72440$c30e37c6(a)lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "D&M JOHNSTON" <mrjay1(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:48634c77$0$30462$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>> I don't think it can actually give you more horsepower but it did make
>> the engine run a lot more freely so less of the pedal movement to keep it
>> moving.
>
> I'm not doubting what you say (well, I am, but I'm trying to be nice :),
> but there has never been a single irrefutable scientific test that proved
> that such products (and I'm not just singling out slick 50) ever made the
> slightest bit of difference to any engine at all.
>
> On the other hand, there's been *thousands* of complaints against
> companies like slick 50, Nulon and others from customers who found that
> the products didn't live up to the manufacturers claims.
>
> Make of that what you will.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>I respect what you say Noddy but i can only go on the experience that I've
>had with Slick 50 after extensive testing in my truck which covered 320kms
>everyday between Grafton, Casino, Lismore & return with pick-ups &
>deliveries throughout the trip. I couldn't ignore the results I was getting
>as it was evident in the fuel bills every month.
I put the stuff in my car first before i tried in the UD and got some good
results, So after my truck had done over 75,000kms to give it a good run-in
time, after a further 20.000kms is when the best results became apparent.
After doing some more reading on Slick 50 after it was pointed out to me on
this thread about a class action in the States, I must've used the original
formula that was produced by John Bishop and was manufactured through
Petrolon PTY LTD but after 1983 Bishop apparently stopped supplying Petrolon
with the formula due to wild claims from that company.

http://www.xcelplus.com.au/docs/false_ad.htm

The formula for the original Slick 50 is now known as Exelplus.

Cheers & thanks for your input

DJ


From: Jason James on 26 Jun 2008 18:51

"Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:48636bb3$0$72440$c30e37c6(a)lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "D&M JOHNSTON" <mrjay1(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:48634c77$0$30462$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > I don't think it can actually give you more horsepower but it did make
the
> > engine run a lot more freely so less of the pedal movement to keep it
> > moving.
>
> I'm not doubting what you say (well, I am, but I'm trying to be nice :),
but
> there has never been a single irrefutable scientific test that proved that
> such products (and I'm not just singling out slick 50) ever made the
> slightest bit of difference to any engine at all.
>
> On the other hand, there's been *thousands* of complaints against
companies
> like slick 50, Nulon and others from customers who found that the products
> didn't live up to the manufacturers claims.
>
> Make of that what you will.

One of the fellows at work bought a can. IIRC, you could see the tiny flecks
of PTFE in a grey oily substance which was only 500ml at best. Now that is
silly, as any oil-filter will pick-up the flecks, and may even clog-up. The
other clain of running an engine with no oil except one of these products
doesnt make sense either, as the product has to adhere to the crank journals
and the cylinder wall for hours. It just dont fly. A new engine with no oil
for that second or two while the oil-pump primes, is quite noisy. As the
journals and rings wipe the film of S-50 off, the engine will be noisy
before that occurs and shortly afterwards, will put a leg out of bed. It's
BS :-)

Jason


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Wanted Ford 289 cu in Motor
Next: Converting V8 Holden to gas qury