PSA - ProLong Engine Treatment
07-13-2015, 05:16 PM
#1
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Top of 6th Gear
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PSA - ProLong Engine Treatment So... I've used this stuff since it's inception. Since back in the day when Smokey Yunick was still alive and shilling for the product.
Drag car. National Champion. Prolong.
Roadrace car. National champion . Prolong.
Roadrace Endurance car. Regional Champion. Prolong.
600+ hp NA street car. Prolong.
I've never lost a motor in my life. Never hurt one. So what does that prove ?
Not too much. But I've known since the 90's I would never run without it based upon motor programs that were so dead-reliable...I seemingly couldn't kill one if I tried.
'Show me the data or it never happened'
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=526537
Lastly - I could care less about Marketing ploys , false advertising and T.V. hype. I care about what's inside the bottle...and whether it really works...or rather whether I'm imagining that it works.
I won't be draining all the oil from my crankcase and driving around - no matter who tells me I can.
I'll be running it in all three components. Engine , transmission and differential.
Drag car. National Champion. Prolong.
Roadrace car. National champion . Prolong.
Roadrace Endurance car. Regional Champion. Prolong.
600+ hp NA street car. Prolong.
I've never lost a motor in my life. Never hurt one. So what does that prove ?
Not too much. But I've known since the 90's I would never run without it based upon motor programs that were so dead-reliable...I seemingly couldn't kill one if I tried.
'Show me the data or it never happened'
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=526537
Lastly - I could care less about Marketing ploys , false advertising and T.V. hype. I care about what's inside the bottle...and whether it really works...or rather whether I'm imagining that it works.
I won't be draining all the oil from my crankcase and driving around - no matter who tells me I can.
I'll be running it in all three components. Engine , transmission and differential.
07-14-2015, 09:17 AM
#2
PROLONG
The manufacturers of the ProLong engine additive were dealt a smack in the face by a Consumer Reports Magazine report into their product. CR attempted to reproduce the "no oil" test where all the oil was drained out of an engine which had been treated with ProLong, and then the engine was run. CR managed a maximum of 13 seconds running out of each of two engine before they seized up, welding the pistons to the barrels. The case was brought to a Federal Commision for prosecution for false advertising claims. You can subscribe to the online version of Consumer Reports here for a minimal fee, and read all about it in their October 1998 features.
Source: Consumer Reports, October 1998.
The FTC ultimately settled its investigation with Prolong, without fines of any kind. After 18 months of testing the FTC indicated that Prolong is exactly what they say it is. Further, the FTC approved Prolong's new advertising statement, currently in print in Car and Driver, as "The World's Most Powerful Oil".
BUT WHAT ABOUT HENRY "SMOKEY" YUNICK?
I've received a number of emails in the past from people who put a lot of stock in what the late Henry Yunick had to say about ProLong because he was a respected mechanic and car designer. The truth of the matter is that his endorsement of ProLong was paid for by them with financial enticements, air fares, NASCAR hard cards, uniforms and other expenses, as documented in their SEC 10K filing. SEC ProLong 10K filing re. Smokey Yunick. Because of the ProLong financial interest in Yunick, his views were absolutely not impartial and he was essentially paid to promote ProLong, for better or for worse. He was an excellent designer and mechanic - the very reasons ProLong wanted him as a spokesman.
The manufacturers of the ProLong engine additive were dealt a smack in the face by a Consumer Reports Magazine report into their product. CR attempted to reproduce the "no oil" test where all the oil was drained out of an engine which had been treated with ProLong, and then the engine was run. CR managed a maximum of 13 seconds running out of each of two engine before they seized up, welding the pistons to the barrels. The case was brought to a Federal Commision for prosecution for false advertising claims. You can subscribe to the online version of Consumer Reports here for a minimal fee, and read all about it in their October 1998 features.
Source: Consumer Reports, October 1998.
The FTC ultimately settled its investigation with Prolong, without fines of any kind. After 18 months of testing the FTC indicated that Prolong is exactly what they say it is. Further, the FTC approved Prolong's new advertising statement, currently in print in Car and Driver, as "The World's Most Powerful Oil".
BUT WHAT ABOUT HENRY "SMOKEY" YUNICK?
I've received a number of emails in the past from people who put a lot of stock in what the late Henry Yunick had to say about ProLong because he was a respected mechanic and car designer. The truth of the matter is that his endorsement of ProLong was paid for by them with financial enticements, air fares, NASCAR hard cards, uniforms and other expenses, as documented in their SEC 10K filing. SEC ProLong 10K filing re. Smokey Yunick. Because of the ProLong financial interest in Yunick, his views were absolutely not impartial and he was essentially paid to promote ProLong, for better or for worse. He was an excellent designer and mechanic - the very reasons ProLong wanted him as a spokesman.
07-14-2015, 09:39 AM
#4
My machinist back home bought all of Smokey Yunick's machine shop. My LS7 Fidanza alum FW, and PP in my C5 was balanced on his crank balancer (among other things) to 18,000 RPM zero balance! Not much relevance, just a fun story. Was hands down the smoothest clutch/LS6 motor I ever owned.
Edit: Between this htread and the other it sounds like you're very impressionable, or perhaps easily so. Miracles don't come in a can.
Edit: Between this htread and the other it sounds like you're very impressionable, or perhaps easily so. Miracles don't come in a can.
Last edited by NIKDSC5; 07-14-2015 at 10:08 AM.
07-14-2015, 11:38 AM
#5
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Top of 6th Gear
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What did you make of 540RAT's analysis ? It's obvious you went through the data (that's why you're not so impressionable) and after going through his data you're STILL a skeptic ?!
C'mon buddy...spill it. You clearly know something....stop holding out.
I'm looking to be educated , so let's start with the data. What part of it aint you buying ?
07-14-2015, 11:42 AM
#6
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Top of 6th Gear
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
07-14-2015, 11:46 AM
#8
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Top of 6th Gear
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-14-2015, 12:15 PM
#9
Oh i have no data, just common sense. I have read enough to know the synthetic oil I use and the frequency in which I service is more than sufficient. Had I been running an F1 car which you can't start unless its up to operating temp, then maybe I would look at test data or have done some of my own testing.
But until then I will continue on living in a capitalist country whom I will assume is always trying to sell me something....most likely something I just don't need.
But until then I will continue on living in a capitalist country whom I will assume is always trying to sell me something....most likely something I just don't need.
07-14-2015, 12:38 PM
#10
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Top of 6th Gear
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I suspected.....
I provided that data FOR YOU in my original post. Not rocket surgery and won't require a rocket surgeon to understand the data he provides.
Don't be scared homie. Read and learn. If you can take the time to talk **** - you can take the time to peruse the link I provided which just might expand your understanding of the subject.
I've used this product continuously for 25 years under the most severe conditions imaginable . During that time I never ONCE recommended to someone that they use this product. What would I base that recommendation on? My non-existent DNF record ?
540RAT's analysis simply backed up my 25 years seat-of the-pants "analysis" with hard data.
I provided that data FOR YOU in my original post. Not rocket surgery and won't require a rocket surgeon to understand the data he provides.
Don't be scared homie. Read and learn. If you can take the time to talk **** - you can take the time to peruse the link I provided which just might expand your understanding of the subject.
I've used this product continuously for 25 years under the most severe conditions imaginable . During that time I never ONCE recommended to someone that they use this product. What would I base that recommendation on? My non-existent DNF record ?
540RAT's analysis simply backed up my 25 years seat-of the-pants "analysis" with hard data.
07-14-2015, 01:11 PM
#11
I read the data, and I read the skeptics. I have read plenty on the topic to know, what I do is sufficient, proven, and will remain the same. And that you took offense too 
Don't be scared homie, its called being objective. Which you're not.
Never once until today then huh? Pfft
Backed up your 25 years of analysis.....and that means what to me? I just am supposed to trust your ***?
Don't believe everything you read on the internet
07-14-2015, 01:30 PM
#13
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Top of 6th Gear
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your reading comprehension is atrocious ! I mean...seriously !
If I'm going to "skim" an article or post - I won't be foolish enough to then comment on that read.
I specifically said that my 25 years meant nothing - hence the reason I never recommended the stuff. Your reply is to ask if you're suppose believe my ***?
Reading comprehension. Get ya sum.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet". Agreed. But don't play yourself either by considering this some type of gospel. You'll miss out just like you did here.
I didn't ask anyone to believe my *** , I asked them to consider 540RATS ***. I asked YOU to consider 540RAT's *** too.
But nope....you don't believe everything you read on the internet.
If I'm going to "skim" an article or post - I won't be foolish enough to then comment on that read.
I specifically said that my 25 years meant nothing - hence the reason I never recommended the stuff. Your reply is to ask if you're suppose believe my ***?
Reading comprehension. Get ya sum.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet". Agreed. But don't play yourself either by considering this some type of gospel. You'll miss out just like you did here.
I didn't ask anyone to believe my *** , I asked them to consider 540RATS ***. I asked YOU to consider 540RAT's *** too.
But nope....you don't believe everything you read on the internet.
07-14-2015, 01:33 PM
#14
And I quote.....From "The Rat"
"Prolong Engine Treatment is another motor oil additive that testing showed significantly improves an oil’s wear protection capability. I tested it in a full synthetic oil, and two conventional oils, which as a group, had a wide range for their original ranking positions. The additive improved the wear protection capability of all 3 oils, on average by about 46%. But, keep in mind that I only test an oil’s “Wear Protection Capability”. That provides the information that people usually care about most. However, that data is limited to ONLY wear protection capability, and does NOT provide any information as to how compatible overall this product’s chlorine may be with a given oil’s additive package. Chlorine and additive package incompatibility has the potential to result in corrosion issues. Contact Prolong’s maker for more information on compatibility."
You know, in case you didn't catch it
And I can go on if you like......?
Like how all this data was for flat tappet cams?
Or maybe how he invented his own test data and parameters and simply avoided the ASTM testing standard. Because he, unlike teams of people, have figured out better testing procedures.
Gimme a break.
Not sure here, but I think I "got sum"
Fork it im gonna keep going
:"Prolong Engine Treatment motor oil additive worked amazingly well for increasing wear protection capability in all types of oils, at all ranking levels. But, for most people, it would be more cost effective to simply choose a highly ranked oil in the first place, and avoid using any additives at all."
"The test data on Prolong is included in my Ranking List for informational purposes only. I do not endorse nor recommend its use.
."
"Prolong Engine Treatment is another motor oil additive that testing showed significantly improves an oil’s wear protection capability. I tested it in a full synthetic oil, and two conventional oils, which as a group, had a wide range for their original ranking positions. The additive improved the wear protection capability of all 3 oils, on average by about 46%. But, keep in mind that I only test an oil’s “Wear Protection Capability”. That provides the information that people usually care about most. However, that data is limited to ONLY wear protection capability, and does NOT provide any information as to how compatible overall this product’s chlorine may be with a given oil’s additive package. Chlorine and additive package incompatibility has the potential to result in corrosion issues. Contact Prolong’s maker for more information on compatibility."
You know, in case you didn't catch it
And I can go on if you like......?
Like how all this data was for flat tappet cams?
Or maybe how he invented his own test data and parameters and simply avoided the ASTM testing standard. Because he, unlike teams of people, have figured out better testing procedures.
Gimme a break.
Not sure here, but I think I "got sum"
Fork it im gonna keep going
:"Prolong Engine Treatment motor oil additive worked amazingly well for increasing wear protection capability in all types of oils, at all ranking levels. But, for most people, it would be more cost effective to simply choose a highly ranked oil in the first place, and avoid using any additives at all."
"The test data on Prolong is included in my Ranking List for informational purposes only. I do not endorse nor recommend its use.
."
Last edited by NIKDSC5; 07-14-2015 at 01:42 PM.
07-14-2015, 02:45 PM
#18
Or maybe how he invented his own test data and parameters and simply avoided the ASTM testing standard. Because he, unlike teams of people, have figured out better testing procedures.
07-14-2015, 03:03 PM
#20
A little more to chew on (Microlon is addressed):
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 (THICK) 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.
DuPont says It Isn’t True
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."
At the time, DuPont threatened legal action against anyone who used the name "Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in an internal combustion engine, and refused to sell its PTFE powders to any one who intended to use them for such purposes. After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming DuPont could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont was forced to once again begin selling their PTFE to the additive producers.
The additive makers like to claim this is some kind of "proof' that their products work, when in fact it is nothing more than proof that the American legal ethic of "innocent until proven guilty" is still alive and well. The decision against DuPont involved what is called "restraint of trade." You can't refuse to sell a product to someone just because there is a possibility they might use it for a purpose other than what you intended it for. 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." Fear of potential lawsuits for possible misrepresentation of a product seem to run much higher among those with the most to lose.
DuPont Tries to Halt Use
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 trade names. 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 pres sure 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...
The Plot Thickens
Just as we were about to go to press with this article, we were contacted by the public relations firm of Trent and Company, an outfit with a prestigious address in the Empire State Building, New York. They advised us they were working for a company called QMI out of Lakeland, Florida, that was marketing a "technological breakthrough" product in oil additives. Naturally, we asked them to send us all pertinent information, including any testing and research data. What we got was pretty much what we expected. QMI's oil additive, according to their press release, uses "ten times more PTFE resins than its closest competitor." Using the "unique SX-6000 formula," they say they are the only company to use "aqueous dispersion resin which means the microns (particle sizes) are extensively smaller and can penetrate tight areas." This, they claim, "completely eliminates the problem of clogged filters and oil passages."
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 (THICK) 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.
DuPont says It Isn’t True
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."
At the time, DuPont threatened legal action against anyone who used the name "Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in an internal combustion engine, and refused to sell its PTFE powders to any one who intended to use them for such purposes. After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming DuPont could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont was forced to once again begin selling their PTFE to the additive producers.
The additive makers like to claim this is some kind of "proof' that their products work, when in fact it is nothing more than proof that the American legal ethic of "innocent until proven guilty" is still alive and well. The decision against DuPont involved what is called "restraint of trade." You can't refuse to sell a product to someone just because there is a possibility they might use it for a purpose other than what you intended it for. 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." Fear of potential lawsuits for possible misrepresentation of a product seem to run much higher among those with the most to lose.
DuPont Tries to Halt Use
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 trade names. 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 pres sure 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...
The Plot Thickens
Just as we were about to go to press with this article, we were contacted by the public relations firm of Trent and Company, an outfit with a prestigious address in the Empire State Building, New York. They advised us they were working for a company called QMI out of Lakeland, Florida, that was marketing a "technological breakthrough" product in oil additives. Naturally, we asked them to send us all pertinent information, including any testing and research data. What we got was pretty much what we expected. QMI's oil additive, according to their press release, uses "ten times more PTFE resins than its closest competitor." Using the "unique SX-6000 formula," they say they are the only company to use "aqueous dispersion resin which means the microns (particle sizes) are extensively smaller and can penetrate tight areas." This, they claim, "completely eliminates the problem of clogged filters and oil passages."