Nigel Charles wrote:
>
>> Message text written by "Nic"
>> I've been using a Teflon oil treatment, Slick 50, in my vehicles since the
>> FAA approved it in the seventies.
>> It gets burnished onto sliding surfaces like cylinders, rings, and pistons.
>> Also, it protects cam lobes and tappets and gear teeth from abrasion and
>> erosion.
>> It works best in engines that are "well" worn in (not worn out).
>> You know its working when the next morning, it cranks over like the plugs
>> have been removed.
>> Operating temperatures are lower and/or easier to mantain.
>> Is Slick 50 popular anywhere else?
>
> I seem to remember being warned against any oil treatment products because
> although they work OK with unleaded fuel there can be problems if Avgas is
> used. I would certainly not use it in a Rotax unless it had been cleared by
> Rotax themselves.
> Nigel Charles
I'm with you, Nigel. I tried Microlon in my Traveler many years ago,
and I can honestly report that #%$!*
absolutely nothing.
I pasted below (excuse the length, I even edited out excessive
yak-yak), an article from Road Rider magazine, concerning Microlon,
Rislone, Marvel, Slick 50, and all them magic elixirs, but with an OK
to semi-synthetic oils. I can't speak to it's veracity, but it's
documented and consistent with many articles appearing over the years
in "Aviation Consumer," a well respected, no-advertising aviation pub.
Regards,
Fred F., A063
SNAKE OIL!
Is That Additive Really A Negative?
ROAD RIDER/August 1992/Pg 15
Article by Fred Rau
Information for this article was compiled from reports and studies by
the University of Nevada Desert Research Center, DuPont Chemical
Company, Avco Lycoming (aircraft engine manufacturers), North Dakota
State University, Briggs and Stratton (engine manufacturers), the
University of Utah Engineering Experiment Station, California State
Polytechnic College and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's Lewis Research Center.
YOU CAN'T TELL THE PLAYERS WITHOUT A PROGRAM
On starting this project, we set out to find as many different oil
additives as we could buy. That turned out to be a mistake. There
were simply too many available! At the very first auto parts store we
visited, there were over two dozen different brand names available.
By the end of the day, we had identified over 40 different oil
additives for sale and realized we needed to rethink our strategy.
First of all, we found that if we checked the fine print on the
packages, quite a number of the additives came from the same
manufacturer. Also, we began to notice that the additives could be
separated into basic "groups" that seemed to carry approximately the
same ingredients and the same promises.
In the end, we divided our additives into four basic groups and
purchased at least three brands from three different manufacturers for
each group. We defined our four groups this way:
1. Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular 50-rated
engine oil (including standard additives) with PTFE (Teflon TM) added.
2. Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular 50-rated
engine oil (including standard additives) with zinc
dialkyldithiophosphate added.
3. Products containing (as near as we could determine) much the same
additives as are already found in most major brands of engine oil,
though in different quantities and combinations.
4. Products made up primarily of solvents and/or detergents. There
may be some differences in chemical makeup within groups, but that is
impossible to tell since the additive manufacturers refuse to list the
specific ingredients of their products.
THE PTFE MYSTERY
Currently, the most common and popular oil additives on the market are
those that contain PTFE powders suspended in a regular,
over-the-counter type, 50-rated petroleum or synthetic engine oil.
PTFE is the common abbreviation used for Polytetrafloeraethylene, more
commonly known by the trade name "Teflon," which is a registered
trademark of the DuPont Chemical Corporation. Among those oil
additives we have identified as containing PTFE are: Slick 50, Liquid
Ring, Lubrilon, Microlon, Matrix, Petrolon (same company as Slick 50),
QMl, and T-Plus (K-Mart). There are probably many more names in use
on many more products using PTFE. We have found that oil additive
makers like to market their products under a multitude of "private
brand" names.
While some of these products may contain other additives in addition
to PTFE, all seem to rely on the PTFE as their primary active
ingredient and all, without exception, do not list what other
ingredients they may contain.
Though they have gained rather wide acceptance among the motoring
public, oil additives containing PTFE have also garnered their share
of critics among experts in the field of lubrication. By far the most
damning testimonial against these products originally came from the
DuPont Chemical Corporation, inventor of PTFE and holder of the
patents and trademarks for Teflon. In a statement issued about ten
years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division Product Specialist, J.F.
Imbalzano said, "Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in oil
additives or oils used for internal combustion engines."
It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use of PTFE
in engine oils remains carefully aloof and noncommittal, for obvious
legal reasons. DuPont states that though they sell PTFE to oil
additive producers, they have "no proof of the validity of the
additive makers' claims." They further state that they have "no
knowledge of any advantage gained through the use of PTFE in engine
oil."
After DuPont's decision and attempt to halt the use of PTFE in engine
oils, several of the oil additive companies simply went elsewhere for
their PTFE powders, such as purchasing them in other countries. In
some cases, they disguise or hype their PTFE as being something
different or special by listing it under one of their own tradenames.
That doesn't change the fact that it is still PTFE.
In addition, there is some evidence that certain supplies of PTFE
powders (from manufacturers other than DuPont) are of a cruder version
than the original, made with larger sized flakes that are more likely
to "settle out" in your oil or clog up your filters. One fairly good
indication that a product contains this kind of PTFE is if the
instructions for its use advise you to "shake well before using." It
only stands to reason that if the manufacturer knows the solids in his
product will settle to the bottom of a container while sitting on a
shelf, the same thing is going to happen inside your engine when it is
left idle for any period of time.
The problem with putting PTFE in your oil, as explained to us by
several industry experts, is that PTFE is a solid. The additive
makers claim this solid "coats" the moving parts in an engine (though
that is far from being scientifically proven). Slick 50 is currently
both the most aggressive advertiser and the most popular seller, with
claims of over 14 million treatments sold. However, such solids seem
even more inclined to coat non-moving parts, like oil passages and
filters. After all, if it can build up under the pressures and
friction exerted on a cylinder wall, then it stands to reason it
should build up even better in places with low pressures and virtually
no friction.
This conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil additives
containing PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center, which
said in their report, "In the types of bearing surface contact we have
looked at, we have seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen
detrimental effect. The solids in the oil tend to accumulate at
inlets and act as a dam, which simply blocks the oil from entering.
Instead of helping, it is actually depriving parts of lubricant."
Remember, PTFE in oil additives is a suspended solid. Now think about
why you have an oil filter on your engine. To remove suspended
solids, right? Right. Therefore it would seem to follow that if your
oil filter is doing its job, it will collect as much of the PTFE as
possible, as quickly as possible. This can result in a clogged oil
filter and decreased oil pressure throughout your engine.
In response to our inquiries about this sort of problem, several of
the PTFE pushers responded that their particulates were of a
sub-micron size, capable of passing through an ordinary oil filter
unrestricted. This certainly sounds good, and may in some cases
actually be true, but it makes little difference when you know the
rest of the story. You see, PTFE has other qualities besides being a
friction reducer: It expands radically when exposed to heat. So even
if those particles are small enough to pass through your filter when
you purchase them, they very well may not be when your engine reaches
normal operating temperature.
Here again, the scientific evidence seems to support this, as in tests
conducted by researchers at the University of Utah Engineering
Experiment Station involving Petrolon additive with PTFE.
The Petrolon test report states, "There was a pressure drop across the
oil filter resulting from possible clogging of small passageways." In
addition, oil analysis showed that iron contamination doubled after
using the treatment, indicating that engine wear didn't go down - it
appeared to shoot up.
This particular report was paid for by Petrolon (marketers of Slick
50), and was not all bad news for their products. The tests,
conducted on a Chevrolet six-cylinder automobile engine, showed that
after treatment with the PTFE additive the test engine's friction was
reduced by 13.1 percent. Also, output horsepower increased from 5.3
percent to 8.1 percent, and fuel economy improved from 11.8 percent
under light load to 3.8 percent under heavy load.
These are the kind of results an aggressive marketing company like
Petrolon can really sink their teeth into. If we only reported the
results in the last paragraph to you, you'd be inclined to think Slick
50 was indeed a magic engine elixir. What you have to keep in mind is
that often times the benefits (like increased horse power and fuel
economy) may be out weighed by some serious drawbacks (like the
indications of reduced oil pressure and increased wear rate).
What they found was that both engines suffered from scored crankpin
bearings, but the engine treated with the additive also suffered from
heavy cylinder bore damage that was not evident on the untreated
engine.
This points out once again the inherent problem with particulate oil
additives: They can cause oil starvation. This is particularly true
in the area of piston rings, where there is a critical need for
adequate oil flow. In practically all of the reports and studies on
oil additives, and particularly those involving suspended solids like
PTFE, this has been reported as a major area of engine damage.
WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR
The pricing of oil additives seems to follow no particular pattern
whatsoever. Even among those products that seem to be almost
identical, chemically, retail prices covered an extremely wide range.
For example:
One 32-ounce bottle of Slick 50 (with PTFE) cost us $29.95 at a
discount house that listed the retail price as $59.95, while a
32-ounce bottle of T-Plus (which claims to carry twice as much PTFE as
the Slick 50) cost us only $15.88.
A 32-ounce bottle of STP Engine Treatment (containing what they call
XEP2), which they claim they can prove "outperforms leading PTFE
engine treatments," cost us $17.97. Yet a can of K-Mart Super Oil
Treatment, which listed the same zinc-derivative ingredient as that
listed for the XEP2, cost us a paltry $2.67.
Industry experts estimate that the actual cost of producing most oil
additives is from one-tenth to one-twentieth of the asking retail
price. Certainly no additive manufacturer has come forward with any
exotic, high-cost ingredient or list of ingredients to dispute this
claim. As an interesting note along with this, back before there was
so much competition in the field to drive prices down, Petrolon (Slick
50) was selling their PTFE products for as much as $400 per
treatment! The words "buyer beware" seem to take on very real
significance when talking about oil additives.
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PLACEBO
You have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating against
oil additives, why so many of us still buy them. That's the
million-dollar question, and it's just as difficult to answer as why
so many of us smoke cigarettes, drink hard liquor or engage in any
other number of questionable activities. We know they aren't good for
us - but we go ahead and do them anyway.
Part of the answer may lie in what some psychiatrists call the
"psychological placebo effect." Simply put, that means that many of
us hunger for that peace of mind that comes with believing we have
purchased the absolute best or most protection we can possibly get.
Even better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comes with
thinking we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessing knowledge of
something just a bit better than everyone else.
TESTIMONIAL HYPE VS. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
In general, most producers of oil additives rely on personal
"testimonials" to advertise and promote their products. A typical
print advertisement will be one or more letters from a satisfied
customer stating something like, "1 have used Brand X in my engine for
2 years and 50,000 miles and it runs smoother and gets better gas
mileage than ever before. I love this product and would recommend it
to anyone."
Such evidence is referred to as "anecdotal" and is most commonly used
to promote such things as miracle weight loss diets and astrology.
The point is, compiling "personal testimonials" for a product is one
of the easiest things an advertising company can do -- and one of the
safest, too. You see, as long as they are only expressing some one
else's personal opinion, they don't have to prove a thing! It's just
an opinion, and needs no basis in fact whatsoever.
On the other hand, there has been documented, careful scientific
analysis done on numerous oil additives by accredited institutions and
researchers.
For example:
Avco Lycoming, a major manufacturer of aircraft engines, states, "We
have tried every additive we could find on the market, and they are
all worthless." Briggs and Stratton, renowned builders of some of the
most durable engines in the world, says in their report on engine oil
additives, "They do not appear to offer any benefits." North Dakota
State University conducted tests on oil additives and said in their
report, "The theory sounds good - the only problem is that the
products simply don't work."
And finally, Ed Hackett, chemist at the University of Nevada Desert
Research Center, says, "Oil additives should not be used. The oil
companies have gone to great lengths to develop an additive pack age
that meets the vehicle's requirements. If you add anything to this
oil you may upset the balance and prevent the oil from performing to
specification."
Petrolon, Inc., of Houston, Texas, makers of Petrolon and producers of
at least a dozen other lubrication products containing PTFE, including
Slick 50 and Slick 30 Motorcycle Formula, claim that, "Multiple tests
by independent laboratories have shown that when properly applied to
an automotive engine, Slick 50 Engine Formula reduces wear on engine
parts. Test results have shown that Slick 50 treated engines
sustained 50 percent less wear than test engines run with premium
motor oil alone." Sounds pretty convincing, doesn't it?
The problem is, Petrolon and the other oil additive companies that
claim "scientific evidence" from "independent laboratories," all
refuse to identify the laboratories that conducted the tests or the
criteria under which the tests were conducted. They claim they are
"contractually bound" by the laboratories to not reveal their
identities.
In addition, the claim of "50 percent less wear" has never been proven
on anything approaching a long-term basis. Typical examples used to
support the additive makers' claims involve engines run from 100 to
200 hours after treatment, during which time the amount of wear
particles in the oil decreased. While this has proven to be true in
some cases, it has also been proven that after 400 to 500 hours of
running the test engines invariably reverted to producing just as many
wear particles as before treatment, and in some cases, even more.
No matter what the additive makers would like you to believe, nothing
has been proven to stop normal engine wear.
You will note that all of the research facilities quoted in this
article are clearly identified. They have no problem with making
their findings public. You will also note that virtually all of their
findings about oil additives are negative. That's not because we
wanted to give a biased report against oil additives - it's because we
couldn't find a single laboratory, engine manufacturer or independent
research facility who would make a public claim, with their name
attached to it, that any of the additives were actually beneficial to
an engine. The conclusion seems inescapable.
IN CONCLUSION
The major oil companies are some of the richest, most powerful and
aggressive corporations in world. They own multi-million dollar
research facilities manned by some of the best chemical engineers
money can hire. It is probably safe to say that any one of them has
the capabilities and resources at hand in marketing, distribution,
advertising, research and product development equal to 20 times that
of any of the independent additive companies. It therefore stands to
reason that if any of these additive products were actually capable of
improving the capabilities of engine lubricants, the major oil
companies would have been able to determine that and to find some way
to cash in on it.
Yet of all the oil additives we found, none carried the name or
endorsement of any of the major oil producers. In addition, all of
the major vehicle and engine manufacturers spend millions of dollars
each year trying to increase the longevity of their products, and
millions more paying off warranty claims when their products fail.
Again, it only stands to reason that if they thought any of these
additives would increase the life or improve the performance of their
engines, they would be actively using and selling them - or at least
endorsing their use.
Instead, many of them advise against the use of these additives and,
in some cases, threaten to void their warranty coverage if such things
are found to be used in their products.
In any story of this nature, absolute "facts" are virtually impossible
to come by. Opinions abound. Evidence that points one direction or
the other is avail able, but has to be carefully ferreted out, and is
not always totally reliable or completely verifiable.
In this environment, conclusions reached by known, knowledgeable
experts in the field must be given a certain amount of weight.
Conclusions reached by unknown, unidentifiable sources must be
discounted almost totally. That which is left must be weighed, one
side against the other, in an attempt to reach a reasonable"
conclusion.
In the case of oil additives, there is a considerable volume of
evidence against their effectiveness. This evidence comes from
well-known and identifiable expert sources, including independent
research laboratories, state universities, major engine manufacturers,
and even NASA.
SIDEBAR: SYNTHETIC OILS
Whenever we talk about oil additives, the subject of synthetic oils
inevitably crops up. Actually, the two subjects have very little to
do with each other, but since many riders seem to equate additives and
synthetics together in their minds, we will take a few lines just to
clear the air.
Synthetic oils were originally developed for use in gas turbine
engines. In most cases they are capable of maintaining their
viscosity for longer periods of use and under much greater
temperatures and pressures than petroleum products.
Commons synthetics used for engine lubrication today are
Polyalphaolefin (like Mobil 1) or Dibasic Organic Esters (like
AMSOIL). They are fully compatible with conventional oils and can be
mixed, providing their ratings match. Probably the best situation is
a blend of synthetics and mineral oils, such as Golden Spectro and
AGIP Sint 2000. These products seem to offer the best of both worlds
in protection and extended service life. They may cost considerably
more than standard petroleum products, but they also can be used for
much longer periods between oil changes without losing their
protective capabilities.
Synthetics and synthetic blends offer a wider range of protection than
standard petroleum products. However, it should be noted that this
extended range of protection reaches into an area of temperatures and
pressures virtually impossible to attain inside most motorcycle
engines and transmissions. In other words, if you use them, you are
buying a sort of "overkill protection." It's certainly not going to
hurt anything - it's just unnecessary. That is, unless it makes you
feel better knowing the extra protection is on board, in which case
the added expense may be well justified.
As a basic rule of thumb, using the standard engine oil recommended by
your bike's manufacturer and changing it about every 3000 miles will
afford you all the protection you'll ever need. But if you feel
better knowing you have more protection than you need or, if you like
the extended service-life feature, there's certainly nothing wrong
with using a premium grade synthetic blend lubricant.
|