During the last year or two, a study has been conducted on the Neptune website that tests the wear trends in Mobil 1 over it's lifetime. There are numerous difficulties with their methodology though I applaud their honesty. Many of the problems are simply due to lack of funds but also a reticence to be willing to "risk" a $5K engine. Also, as we all know, valid testing of lubricants is extremely expensive and time-consuming.
When I read of their intentions, I suggested that rather than test Mobil 1 whose properties were indeed pretty well known, that SynLube be used for the test. This proposition was rejected because of the oils inclusion of PTFE (nanoFlon) and because it is a 5W50 oil as opposed to the 5W30 viscosity speced by GM.
All this took place while a debate on MYFORDFOCUS.com (in which yours truly was one of the instigators) raged as to the merits or demerits of SynLube. This debate was in stark contrast to the restrained comments made here. Anyway, even Miro Kefurt, who owns SynLube got involved in the Neptune study. The following link traces the communications that occurred and they may of some interest to participants here.
http://neptune.spacebears.com/cave/syn-tolo.html
Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity
The Neptune study debate was interesting and the two areas of rejection solids and vis IMO opinion were valid.
quote:
The shear stability of an oil is a function of the quality of the additive package so far as I understand the term, not a function of the viscosity.
You are partly wrong. HTHS and kinematic viscosity are related to each other according SAE J300 specification. In addition additives may influence HTHS, too.
I just checked my oil level today.
I have 10,231 miles on the SynLube and the oil level was down 4 ounces.
That's a oil consumption rate of 80K+ miles per quart.
I have 10,231 miles on the SynLube and the oil level was down 4 ounces.
That's a oil consumption rate of 80K+ miles per quart.
quote:
Originally posted by MGBV8:
The Neptune study debate was interesting and the two areas of rejection solids and vis IMO opinion were valid.
Who set the solids standards and what was the limit ? Was the laboritory used acclaimed for setting a solids standard that all other laboritories around the world use ?
The Neptune site was primarily concerned with the inclusion of PTFE (nanoFlon by Shamrock Technologies) in the formula due to the problems seen when a crude form of PTFE was used in Slick 50. The PTFE in nanoFlon is in the form of colloids 0.3-1.0 microns in size. They are permanently suspended in the oil due to the attraction these colloids have to the molecules in the liquid lubricants. The person who conducted the Neptune study did not completely deny that PTFE might work in the oil but was still uncomfortable "risking" his engine by using the SynLube.
When a proper form of PTFE is properly blended with the oil, there will be no problem with its use.
In regard to the viscosity of SynLube, 5W50, the problem here is that such a wide range of viscosity arouses suspicion since cheap polymers added to increase the viscosity range of an oil can fail under hard use and then the oil experiences "viscosity breakdown", a term coined by Castrol and which might very well apply to their 5W50 Syntec oil as some indications on the Redline Oil site seemed to suggest. SynLube, in contrast, stays "in grade" for the duration of its service life.
To date, I am unaware of any standards organization that has specifically warned or implemented standards contrary to the SynLube formulation. The 1996 formula met the new ILSAC and API standards without modification.
No one on the site except myself has even seen a bottle of SynLube, I have been using it for 4 years and have nothing but praise for its performance.
When a proper form of PTFE is properly blended with the oil, there will be no problem with its use.
In regard to the viscosity of SynLube, 5W50, the problem here is that such a wide range of viscosity arouses suspicion since cheap polymers added to increase the viscosity range of an oil can fail under hard use and then the oil experiences "viscosity breakdown", a term coined by Castrol and which might very well apply to their 5W50 Syntec oil as some indications on the Redline Oil site seemed to suggest. SynLube, in contrast, stays "in grade" for the duration of its service life.
To date, I am unaware of any standards organization that has specifically warned or implemented standards contrary to the SynLube formulation. The 1996 formula met the new ILSAC and API standards without modification.
No one on the site except myself has even seen a bottle of SynLube, I have been using it for 4 years and have nothing but praise for its performance.
Why use a 50w oil rather than as recommeded by manual, unless used in applications where oil temperature will be higher?
Why add PTFE if only for noise reduction?
Is Synlube any better than any other longlife oil?
With top quality synthetics the reason for changes appears now more to do with additives being used up not viscosity breakdown, mineral oil not even being used as a carrier. Soot/fuel dilution also change viscosity.
Why add PTFE if only for noise reduction?
Is Synlube any better than any other longlife oil?
With top quality synthetics the reason for changes appears now more to do with additives being used up not viscosity breakdown, mineral oil not even being used as a carrier. Soot/fuel dilution also change viscosity.
PTFE pulls babbit layer off bearing after time no ?
quote:Many OEMs recommend oils that are too thin to be compatible with the quality of life for our engines. As you may well know, the OEMs key their maintenance requirements to the expected life of the car which will vary from 70 to 150K. Now, no one believes that the car will fall apart @ 70K but that is the point where one can expect to begin anticipating repairs. 0W20 and 5W20 oils just don't work when one is going to keep a vehicle for 10-15 years. There's no secret about this. A 20W oil is a 20W oil and by definition provides less protection than a 30W oil given that both oils are in functional condition. When SynLube provides a 1-2% advantage in gas mileage over the thin oils in addition to providing superior engine performance, give me a reason (Hint: There isn't one.) why anyone would use anything else, especially since it doesn't have to be changed but once every 150K miles.
Why use a 50w oil rather than as recommeded by manual, unless used in applications where oil temperature will be higher?
quote:Why not? PTFE does its part for the engine protection and is particularly effective protecting sleeve bearings. As I've pointed out exhaustively, properly implemented, PTFE helps an engine.
Why add PTFE if only for noise reduction?
quote:Yes!! It is better than any oil in any climate for any engine (except a rotary) on weekdays, holidays, Sundays, Boxing Days, and National Cement Pavers Day. No exceptions!!!!
Is Synlube any better than any other longlife oil?
quote:Since SynLube has been designed from the start to effectively fight soot, and other forms of contamination, one isn't taking any chance at all using SynLube for the full duration of its service life. Its ability to prevent deterioration in the first place is due to its unsurpassed ring-sealing ability. Many of the problems experienced with oils are a direct result of their reaction to the presence of heat, which causes oil molecules to bind to contaminants thus undermining the oil's ability to protect. Because SynLube's components are inert, deterioration of the lubricant occurs at an extremely slow rate. At the end of the service life of SynLube, it is still more effective than any other oil when new! Additionally, when it's time to replenish oil that's been consumed, SERVICE FILL or ADD OIL are designed to supplement the original additive package, not just replace lost volume. This is a fundamental difference from any other oil on the market I'm aware of.
With top quality synthetics the reason for changes appears now more to do with additives being used up not viscosity breakdown, mineral oil not even being used as a carrier. Soot/fuel dilution also change viscosity.
There is no reason not to use SynLube in a properly functioning engine. None!!!
It still amazes me to see people on board like this that are always looking for the best oil immediately scramble to find some excuse not to use SynLube.
I eagerly await the cries of denial that will follow this post. I love the ones about PTFE. I just have to laugh sometimes.
quote:Ah, a fresh PTFE threat. This one's especially insideous.
PTFE pulls babbit layer off bearing after time no ?
Unfortunately for the PTFE conspiricists, no evidence of such a problem exists so far as SynLube's implementation of PTFE is concerned.
Could someone clarify at what temperature does PTFE gets attracted to metal surfaces and forms a coating and act as a sealant?
Because there is a misnomer that PTFE forms a coating > 450'C
Because there is a misnomer that PTFE forms a coating > 450'C
The function of PTFE (nanoFlon) in SynLube is presented as follows:
The primary means by which PTFE forms a "coating" occurs as a function of normal engine operation when an extremely heavy load is placed on an engine component. The PTFE becomes plasticized and is pushed into the fine "valleys" in machined surfaces. Secondarily, they are also found on metal parts as a result of being attracted to the esters in the formula that are negatively charged and therefore attracted to positively charged engine surfaces.
All of this occurs well before the 450 degrees Centigrade mention. This temperature should never be encountered in a anything approaching normal engine operation.
quote:
The PTFE colloids that are contained in SynLube Lube-4-Life® reduce the Bearing Clearances, which in turn lower the lubricant side leakage rate. This brings onset of the favorable Hydrodynamic Lubrication regime at lower rotational speeds and results in better fuel efficiency and less Wear. Reduced clearances also reduce vibration and noise generation, SynLube Lube-4-Life® lubricated mechanisms therefore run noticeably quieter sometimes [by] up to several decibels.
The primary means by which PTFE forms a "coating" occurs as a function of normal engine operation when an extremely heavy load is placed on an engine component. The PTFE becomes plasticized and is pushed into the fine "valleys" in machined surfaces. Secondarily, they are also found on metal parts as a result of being attracted to the esters in the formula that are negatively charged and therefore attracted to positively charged engine surfaces.
All of this occurs well before the 450 degrees Centigrade mention. This temperature should never be encountered in a anything approaching normal engine operation.
@Houckster
We all know that you are convinced of Synlubes products. Yet I stay sceptic as you are mixing up so many things which just can't be true. The mineral oil industry e.g. uses much better products than PTFE as friction modifier, e.g. Molybdenumdithiocarbamates.
It is simply impossible to reduce the bearing clearances with Teflon. By the way, by doing this you would raise the oil temperature significantly.
I tried to explain to you other obvious mistakes during this thread.
In addition it does not make sense to claim that a 10 year old used oil is better than a new unused synthetic oil.
You are right by claiming that I never even saw a bottle of Synlube oil. But I saw many other oils and many engine oil test results to do such statements.
We all know that you are convinced of Synlubes products. Yet I stay sceptic as you are mixing up so many things which just can't be true. The mineral oil industry e.g. uses much better products than PTFE as friction modifier, e.g. Molybdenumdithiocarbamates.
It is simply impossible to reduce the bearing clearances with Teflon. By the way, by doing this you would raise the oil temperature significantly.
I tried to explain to you other obvious mistakes during this thread.
In addition it does not make sense to claim that a 10 year old used oil is better than a new unused synthetic oil.
You are right by claiming that I never even saw a bottle of Synlube oil. But I saw many other oils and many engine oil test results to do such statements.
quote:I am not mixing things up, it's just that you have some very hard preconceptions about what an oil can do and how it should be done. Consequently, any other approach seems fallacious to you. Just because you throw around a big word or two doesn't mean your basic proposition is true.
. . .you are mixing up so many things which just can't be true. The mineral oil industry e.g. uses much better products than PTFE as friction modifier, e.g. Molybdenumdithiocarbamates."
While SynLube does use PTFE as part of the effort to reduce friction, it is only part of the solution. The strength of the Synlube formula is that it uses a combination of chemicals to do this job. Thus to say that SynLube uses PTFE while other makers use Molybdenumdithiocarbamates, for example, is inaccurate to say the least.
quote:I never said this, I said that PTFE is embossed into the pores of the metal surface, not that it reduces clearances per se. No metal surface is completely smooth. It is in the irregularities of the surface that SynLube's PTFE and synthetic moly colloids are found and it is in this way that SynLube improves the seal at the piston rings.
It is simply impossible to reduce the bearing clearances with Teflon. By the way, by doing this you would raise the oil temperature significantly.
quote:Presumptious and condescending! You have your opinion and I have mine.
I tried to explain to you other obvious mistakes during this thread.
In addition it does not make sense to claim that a 10 year old used oil is better than a new unused synthetic oil.
quote:I stand by my statement. SynLube has properties that other makers who make liquid-only lubricants don't can't even try to duplicate. It is the solids in SynLube that provide a quality and longevity of lubrication that liquids don't have. I stand by my statement.
You are right by claiming that I never even saw a bottle of Synlube oil. But I saw many other oils and many engine oil test results to do such statements.
Noise reduction is not essential for protection but can mask perhaps problems. PTFE is not that good on the friction angle probably causing heat so why include this solid.
The only other oil using solids appears to be the cheaper end of market.
Amsoil has been run for long OCIs without problems.
Most mainstay oil companies probably take a conservative view on oil changes until pushed by the maufacturer due to increasing service intervals. At best Synlude uses a good basestock but, too much ester may not be good so must be a fairly standard PAO plus some esters, but not worth anymore than other synthetics. An oil can only take a certain amount of additives which is the reason for usually changing a synth.
An additive top up is being worked on I believe with oil filters, so the top up appears to be only difference but how this mixes with the old oil is a questionable.
The only other oil using solids appears to be the cheaper end of market.
Amsoil has been run for long OCIs without problems.
Most mainstay oil companies probably take a conservative view on oil changes until pushed by the maufacturer due to increasing service intervals. At best Synlude uses a good basestock but, too much ester may not be good so must be a fairly standard PAO plus some esters, but not worth anymore than other synthetics. An oil can only take a certain amount of additives which is the reason for usually changing a synth.
An additive top up is being worked on I believe with oil filters, so the top up appears to be only difference but how this mixes with the old oil is a questionable.
It seems clear that no matter what the properties of SynLube, there is an overwhelming proclivity to believe the worst no matter how far-fetched. How it can be believed that PTFE "is not that good on the friction angle probably causing heat so why include this solid." is hard for me to understand, especially since in 4 years of USING this product I have never had a problem with heat or any other problem. This apparently counts for nothing.
The rest of the post, I'm not sure I understand. There are fragments of logic presented end to end but not enough for me to respond to.
It does seem to me however, that I'm wasting my breath. Hopefully, without seeming mean-spirited, it is hard to avoid concluding that you are perfectly satisfied with what you're using and are not interested in SynLube's advantages. Consequently, there will always be another objection to trying it.
I think I am going to ride off into the sunset.
May all fair well!
The rest of the post, I'm not sure I understand. There are fragments of logic presented end to end but not enough for me to respond to.
It does seem to me however, that I'm wasting my breath. Hopefully, without seeming mean-spirited, it is hard to avoid concluding that you are perfectly satisfied with what you're using and are not interested in SynLube's advantages. Consequently, there will always be another objection to trying it.
I think I am going to ride off into the sunset.
May all fair well!
quote:
I think I am going to ride off into the sunset. May all fair well!
I am a poor lonesome Cowboy, far away from home....
Moving away from Synlube, I understand, and probably a few years ago, that Ford has built a totally replaceable engine - no service oil change etc for 100k miles then just replace engine.
Probably more engine damage is caused by worn fuel injectors etc than not changing Synthetic oil?
Probably more engine damage is caused by worn fuel injectors etc than not changing Synthetic oil?
quote:
Moving away from Synlube, I understand,
I AM NOT MOVING AWAY FROM SYNLUBE!!!! Just moving away from this board. I have said all I have to say about the advantages of this product. People here are happy with what they have and I will leave it at that.
This product seems odd. I emailed Miro and my Suburban is already worn out it seems. 122,000 miles on the odometer. The car that sets next to it also a GM product reflects 225,000 miles on the odometer. Miro sent an email that basically wondered why I would think of putting his oil in such a piece of junk. And one more thing... who in the heck refilters their oil?? Micro, nano, sub-micronic, redistilling all these are nice for smoke and mirrors but nobody else does it.
quote:Originally posted by N2OIL:
This product seems odd. I emailed Miro and my Suburban is already worn out it seems. 122,000 miles on the odometer. The car that sets next to it also a GM product reflects 225,000 miles on the odometer. Miro sent an email that basically wondered why I would think of putting his oil in such a piece of junk. And one more thing... who in the heck refilters their oil?? Micro, nano, sub-micronic, redistilling all these are nice for smoke and mirrors but nobody else does it.
Do I understand your posting correct that you used Synlube in a prescribed manner and you know have problems with your engine?
Can you describe your problems?
I was going to try this product. I emailed the website about questions concerning the oil. My question was using a 5/50 seems out there for a 5/30 application. The email I recieved expressed that anything over 100,000 miles is worn out for a vortec V-8 engine.
The main guy's name is Miro. He actually asked why I would waste the money on his oil. I read all the posts about how great this oil is and I thought I would share some insight to who you might be dealing with as a consumer of this oil.
The main guy's name is Miro. He actually asked why I would waste the money on his oil. I read all the posts about how great this oil is and I thought I would share some insight to who you might be dealing with as a consumer of this oil.
quote:Originally posted by N2OIL:
The main guy's name is Miro. He actually asked why I would waste the money on his oil.
Very good question...
I am not remotely convinced that synlube is all that its proponents claim. Junk Science comes to mind but I won't go there.
Synlube seems dubious and defensive on the challenges to it's scientific merit. Besides the belief that so many motors are "worn out" at 70-100k miles is laughable. And seriously puts a dent in the credibility of the claims.
Synlube seems dubious and defensive on the challenges to it's scientific merit. Besides the belief that so many motors are "worn out" at 70-100k miles is laughable. And seriously puts a dent in the credibility of the claims.
From reading this discussion and other things on the Web, it seems to me possible that:
Houckster = liar = Miro
That is, possibly, Houckster and Miro are the same liar.
The other possibility is that Miro is a liar, and Houckster is an easily mislead fool.
In either case, the falsehood emanating from them has its origins in the Evil One. Perhaps Miro is one of his children. Perhaps Houckster is easily taken by his seductive lies.
Houckster, Miro, get behind me--you who are infested by Satan!
Houckster = liar = Miro
That is, possibly, Houckster and Miro are the same liar.
The other possibility is that Miro is a liar, and Houckster is an easily mislead fool.
In either case, the falsehood emanating from them has its origins in the Evil One. Perhaps Miro is one of his children. Perhaps Houckster is easily taken by his seductive lies.
Houckster, Miro, get behind me--you who are infested by Satan!
I don't think I see any evidence to lead anyone to call Houckster a liar. Also, I have corresponded with Miro and gotten what seems to be reasonable, but rather unconventional views with respect to his lubricants and comparison to conventional lubricants.
I know this topic is a month old yet after reading this discussion I strongly feel that everyone is entitled to their thoughts and can explain them in a civilized manner, however to castigate someone after reading a topic of discussion and to call into question there character without personally knowing them is a bit judgemental and can only instigate strife which is unecessary in a forum that is designed to contribute to some form of enlightment on the subject at hand albiet not a life crisis.
Nonetheless respect and appreciation for others views allows for open communication such sharing allows for even the smallest insight on a matter even if the subject matter is oil "Synlube"
Unfortunately this exactly how such comments facilitate hostility and animosity unecessarily. Mature adults do not have to resort to name calling in order to prove ones point.
Houckster youre internal strengh is to be commended given you had not dignified the last response with answer. I applaud your efforts in trying to establish your point, a goodly amount of which you described opens the door for due consideration and some reasonableness on this brand of oil.
Nonetheless respect and appreciation for others views allows for open communication such sharing allows for even the smallest insight on a matter even if the subject matter is oil "Synlube"
Unfortunately this exactly how such comments facilitate hostility and animosity unecessarily. Mature adults do not have to resort to name calling in order to prove ones point.
Houckster youre internal strengh is to be commended given you had not dignified the last response with answer. I applaud your efforts in trying to establish your point, a goodly amount of which you described opens the door for due consideration and some reasonableness on this brand of oil.
Thank you for your very kind comments. I really appreciate it.
I continue to have excellent performance from the SynLube products I've installed. Oil consumption remains incredibly low, on the order of 4 oz over 14.3K miles and with mileage well above average for my Ranger. I couldn't ask for more. I am going to submit a sample to Miro at 15K miles for some feedback, thereafter, I'll wait until 50K for another test.
Thanks again.
I continue to have excellent performance from the SynLube products I've installed. Oil consumption remains incredibly low, on the order of 4 oz over 14.3K miles and with mileage well above average for my Ranger. I couldn't ask for more. I am going to submit a sample to Miro at 15K miles for some feedback, thereafter, I'll wait until 50K for another test.
Thanks again.
There is one simple reason that Houkster is so keen on Synlube.... he owns it! Anyone who wants to go to http://www.synlube.com will readily find out that 'Miro Kefurt' is the head honcho there! He is not a user only! As he sits in his abode in Las Vegas and promotes, mainly at his computer terminal, At $32.00 per quart [liter] - he does not have to sell too may knot heads his PTFE Cocktail in order to buy his own 'Throw Away Car' - no matter what he puts in the engine! AMSOIL is just AMSOIL - it's 32 year history of growth [will top $100,000,000.00 in sales for 2005] speaks for itself! Miro has threatened to sue me several time for owning the name synlube.net, and has accused me of buying that domian in order to get his customers. I didn't even know his stuff existed when I bought that domain name! I just saw it being used in all the trade literature, with a small 's', as a generic for SYNthetic LUBricants and though it would be a catchy name - for pete's sake! Who could have know that Miro wants to kraft the ownership of a 'Kleenex' type name? For the record - I do not want Miro's customers! Anyone dumb enough to pay $32.00 per quart [liter] for anything that does not have the name 'Dom Pirignon'; 'Chateau Lafite' or Pennicillin on it is off his skids - PERIOD! I read all of "Hucksters" [sic] posts and saw not a serious word about all the dirt [carbon, acid etc.] that accumulates in Lube4Life 'miracle water'. And waht about TBN..... even AMSOIL's TBN falls off eventually! Surely AMSOIL gets dirty as all git out if the filter is not changed! And even if the filter IS changed at say 12,500 miles - the oil is black as tar, until a good 5 micron filter change helps to brighten it up a bit DIRT is DIRT!!!! For $6 bucks a quart - AMSOIL's 25K oil is a good trade-off for EXMO's new 15,000 mile oil at the same price! There are 4,920 references in Google for synlube [sic] and 1/2 of them are Miro's.... the others prove it is a generic term! Type in AMSOIL once and you will see 298,000 references to it! There sure are a lot of dumb people out there! I am one of them! tlk
Can someone lock this 
infomercial?
infomercial?
Infomercial? You gotta be kidding! The difference between me and 'Houkster' is that I come right out and tell you I sell AMSOIL. Personally I do not care if anyone here ever buys AMSOIL..... my sales and my overall success do not depend on me masquerading as an AMSOIL consumer like he does! NO WHERE does Miro Kefurt [Lube4Life huckster] candidly tell anyone that he owns the company! Who is doing the infomercials? Everyone on this board who carries on an ongoing dialog with him is being infomercialized up the gazoo! tlk
p.s. Please, if you are a friend his or a user of the wigit juice that Houkster is selling - DO NOT CALL ME AND ASK TO BUY AMSOIL.... I DO NOT WANT HIS BUSINESS OR YOURS! Neither AMSOIL Corporate nor 'any - any - any' manufacturer - or myself would ever tell someone to put gun lube [PTFE - petrotetroflourethelene (sic)] or frying pan coating in his engine, motor, diesel, turbine, or jet. P_E_R_I_O_D !!!
Read the following article.....
USING TEFLON(R) ADDITIVES
_________________________
Not Very Smart
By James R. Davis
I will admit at the outset that I have no experience whatever in using Slick 50 (nor will I ever). Further, though much will be said of Slick 50 in what follows, it is all generally true of any other synthetic additive containing Teflon®.
Slick 50 is a PTFE related product (i.e., a Teflon® powder suspended in standard oil). Powder, you will note, is a SOLID. Your oil filter is designed to remove solids and tests have shown that oil filters clog substantially sooner when Slick 50 is used than if using standard oils without it - naturally. Manufacturers claim that the particle size of this powder is smaller than the pore size of oil filters, implying that they will pass right through them, but they do not also say that these particles expand rapidly when exposed to heat - so that they may well pass thru when cold, but not after they reach normal engine temperatures. Tests also demonstrate that other oil passageways also tend to clog when PTFE is used.
Tests? By whom? Are they credible? Answer: by organizations like NASA Lewis Research, the University of Utah Engineering Experiment Station, and even DuPont Chemical Corporation, the corporation that invented PTFE (Teflon®) and that provides PTFE to the manufacturers of these 'magic' oils.
Wait! They sell the PTFE to companies like those that make Slick 50 yet they argue that it clogs oil filters and other oil passageways? Not exactly. 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."
They went on and REFUSED to sell PTFE to anyone that intended to do so!
Naturally, they were sued by, guess who, on grounds of 'restraint of trade'. DuPont lost and have changed their position as follows: DuPont now 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."
NASA Lewis Research also ran tests on PTFE additives and they concluded that:
"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."
As to my earlier assertion that Teflon® cannot be made to bond to engine parts, despite what Slick 50 says, the Chief Chemist of Redline Synthetic Oil Company, Roy Howell, says:
"... to plate Teflon on a metal needs an absolutely clean, high temperature surface, in a vacuum. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Teflon in Slick 50 actually plates the metal surface. In addition the Cf (Coefficient of friction) of Teflon is actually greater than the Cf of an Oil Film on Steel. Also, if the Teflon did fill in 'craters' in the steel, than it would fill in the honing of the cylinder, and the oil would not seal the piston rings."
Well, you get the picture. PTFE products like Slick 50 tend to clog oil filters and passageways, resulting in faster ENGINE WEAR. Further, Teflon® is NOT as slippery as an Oil Film on Steel.
Nobody is arguing that you won't get higher engine performance (power) or better gas mileage if you use it. On the other hand, if your engine wears out faster I wonder if that's worth it along with the very much higher price.
If you find that you have to change your oil more often, and use this pricey stuff in it each time, the effective cost is even higher. If you decide that clogged oil filters and oil passageways are something you'd rather do without, how do you get rid of it once you put it into your system? Well, in the case of your clutch, by taking it apart and cleaning it! That's an expensive additive 'cost'.
It is no wonder as far as I'm concerned that Slick 50 is often called 'snake oil'. You might not be stupid if you put it into your motorcycle, but I would be.
-------
Following is a press release from the Federal Trade Commission that you will find interesting if anything I said above fails to be persuasive - JRD
FOR RELEASE: JULY 23, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUAKER STATE SUBSIDIARIES SETTLE FTC CHARGES AGAINST SLICK 50
Agreement Safeguards $10 Million in Redress to Consumers
Three subsidiaries of Quaker State Corp. have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for Quaker State's Slick 50 Engine Treatment were false and unsubstantiated. Under the terms of the settlement, the companies will be barred from making certain claims and required to have substantiation for claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy or attributes of their engine lubricant products. In addition, the settlement will preserve the Commission's option to seek consumer redress if class action suits currently being litigated against Quaker State and its subsidiaries result in less than $10 million in consumer redress.
The three Quaker State subsidiaries named in the settlement are Blue Coral, Inc., Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc., and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd. Blue Coral, Inc., is based in Cleveland, Ohio. Since its 1978 introduction, Slick 50 has about 30 million users world-wide and retails for about $18 a quart. The company claims to have about 60% of the engine treatment market.
In July, 1996, the FTC issued a complaint against four now-defunct Quaker State subsidiaries, which have been succeeded in interest by the three subsidiaries named in the settlement. The FTC's 1996 complaint charged that ads for Slick 50 claiming improved engine performance and reduced engine wear were deceptive. According to the 1996 complaint, Quaker State's subsidiaries aired television and radio commercials and published brochures carrying claims such as:
--"Every time you cold start your car without Slick 50 protection, metal grinds against metal in your engine";
--"With each turn of the ignition you do unseen damage, because at cold start-up most of the oil is down in the pan. But Slick 50's unique chemistry bonds to engine parts. It reduces wear up to 50% for 50,000 miles";
--"What makes Slick 50 Automotive Engine Formula different is an advanced chemical support package designed to bond a specially activated PTFE to the metal in your engine."
According to the FTC complaint, these claims and similar ones falsely represented that without Slick 50, auto engines generally have little or no protection from wear at start-up and commonly experience premature failure caused by wear. In fact, the complaint alleged, most automobile engines are adequately protected from wear at start-up when they use motor oil as recommended in the owner's manual. Moreover, it is uncommon for engines to experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they have been treated with Slick 50 or not, according to the FTC. Finally, the FTC alleged that Slick 50 neither coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE nor meets military specifications for motor oil additives, as falsely claimed.
The FTC complaint also charged that Slick 50 lacked substantiation for advertising claims that, compared to motor oil alone, the product:
--reduces engine wear;
--reduces engine wear by more than 50%;
--reduces engine wear by up to 50%;
--reduces engine wear at start-up;
--extends the duration of engine life;
--lowers engine temperatures;
--reduces toxic emissions;
--increases gas mileage; and
--increases horsepower.
In addition, the complaint alleged that the company did not have adequate substantiation for its advertising claims that one treatment of Slick 50 continues to reduce wear for 50,000 miles and that it has been used in a significant number of U.S. Government vehicles.
Finally, the complaint challenged ads stating that "tests prove" the engine wear reduction claims make by Slick 50. In fact, according to the FTC complaint, tests do not prove that Slick 50 reduces engine wear at start up, or by 50%, or that one treatment reduces engine wear for 50,000 miles.
The agreement to settle the FTC charges bars any claims that:
--engines lack protection from wear at start-up unless they have been treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product;
--engines commonly experience premature failure caused by wear unless they are treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product; or,
--Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE.
In addition, the agreement will prohibit misrepresentations that Slick 50 or any engine lubricant meets the standards of any organization and misrepresentations about tests or studies.
The settlement also prohibits any claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of engine lubricants unless Quaker State's subsidiaries possess and rely on competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the claims. In addition, it prohibits the Quaker State subsidiaries from claiming that any other Slick 50 motor vehicle lubricant reduces wear on a part, extends the part's life, lowers engine temperature, reduces toxic emissions, increases gas mileage or increases horsepower unless they can substantiate the claim. The subsidiaries also will be required to notify resellers of the product about the settlement with the FTC and the restrictions on advertising claims.
Finally, the agreement holds open the option that the FTC may seek consumer redress. If the private class action suits against Slick 50 currently under litigation do not result in at least $10 million in redress to consumers, the agency reserves its right to file its own federal district court action for consumer redress. In addition, the FTC has reserved its right to seek to intervene in any class action suit to oppose a settlement it believes is not in the public interest.
The Commission vote to approve the proposed consent agreement was 5-0. A summary of the agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies of the complaint, consent agreement, an analysis to aid public comment and an FTC brochure, "Penny Wise or Pump Fuelish" are available on the Internet at the FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710.
Teflon® is a registered trademark of DuPont.
Copyright © 1992-2003 by The Master Strategy Group, all rights reserved
p.s. Please, if you are a friend his or a user of the wigit juice that Houkster is selling - DO NOT CALL ME AND ASK TO BUY AMSOIL.... I DO NOT WANT HIS BUSINESS OR YOURS! Neither AMSOIL Corporate nor 'any - any - any' manufacturer - or myself would ever tell someone to put gun lube [PTFE - petrotetroflourethelene (sic)] or frying pan coating in his engine, motor, diesel, turbine, or jet. P_E_R_I_O_D !!!
Read the following article.....
USING TEFLON(R) ADDITIVES
_________________________
Not Very Smart
By James R. Davis
I will admit at the outset that I have no experience whatever in using Slick 50 (nor will I ever). Further, though much will be said of Slick 50 in what follows, it is all generally true of any other synthetic additive containing Teflon®.
Slick 50 is a PTFE related product (i.e., a Teflon® powder suspended in standard oil). Powder, you will note, is a SOLID. Your oil filter is designed to remove solids and tests have shown that oil filters clog substantially sooner when Slick 50 is used than if using standard oils without it - naturally. Manufacturers claim that the particle size of this powder is smaller than the pore size of oil filters, implying that they will pass right through them, but they do not also say that these particles expand rapidly when exposed to heat - so that they may well pass thru when cold, but not after they reach normal engine temperatures. Tests also demonstrate that other oil passageways also tend to clog when PTFE is used.
Tests? By whom? Are they credible? Answer: by organizations like NASA Lewis Research, the University of Utah Engineering Experiment Station, and even DuPont Chemical Corporation, the corporation that invented PTFE (Teflon®) and that provides PTFE to the manufacturers of these 'magic' oils.
Wait! They sell the PTFE to companies like those that make Slick 50 yet they argue that it clogs oil filters and other oil passageways? Not exactly. 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."
They went on and REFUSED to sell PTFE to anyone that intended to do so!
Naturally, they were sued by, guess who, on grounds of 'restraint of trade'. DuPont lost and have changed their position as follows: DuPont now 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."
NASA Lewis Research also ran tests on PTFE additives and they concluded that:
"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."
As to my earlier assertion that Teflon® cannot be made to bond to engine parts, despite what Slick 50 says, the Chief Chemist of Redline Synthetic Oil Company, Roy Howell, says:
"... to plate Teflon on a metal needs an absolutely clean, high temperature surface, in a vacuum. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Teflon in Slick 50 actually plates the metal surface. In addition the Cf (Coefficient of friction) of Teflon is actually greater than the Cf of an Oil Film on Steel. Also, if the Teflon did fill in 'craters' in the steel, than it would fill in the honing of the cylinder, and the oil would not seal the piston rings."
Well, you get the picture. PTFE products like Slick 50 tend to clog oil filters and passageways, resulting in faster ENGINE WEAR. Further, Teflon® is NOT as slippery as an Oil Film on Steel.
Nobody is arguing that you won't get higher engine performance (power) or better gas mileage if you use it. On the other hand, if your engine wears out faster I wonder if that's worth it along with the very much higher price.
If you find that you have to change your oil more often, and use this pricey stuff in it each time, the effective cost is even higher. If you decide that clogged oil filters and oil passageways are something you'd rather do without, how do you get rid of it once you put it into your system? Well, in the case of your clutch, by taking it apart and cleaning it! That's an expensive additive 'cost'.
It is no wonder as far as I'm concerned that Slick 50 is often called 'snake oil'. You might not be stupid if you put it into your motorcycle, but I would be.
-------
Following is a press release from the Federal Trade Commission that you will find interesting if anything I said above fails to be persuasive - JRD
FOR RELEASE: JULY 23, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUAKER STATE SUBSIDIARIES SETTLE FTC CHARGES AGAINST SLICK 50
Agreement Safeguards $10 Million in Redress to Consumers
Three subsidiaries of Quaker State Corp. have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for Quaker State's Slick 50 Engine Treatment were false and unsubstantiated. Under the terms of the settlement, the companies will be barred from making certain claims and required to have substantiation for claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy or attributes of their engine lubricant products. In addition, the settlement will preserve the Commission's option to seek consumer redress if class action suits currently being litigated against Quaker State and its subsidiaries result in less than $10 million in consumer redress.
The three Quaker State subsidiaries named in the settlement are Blue Coral, Inc., Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc., and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd. Blue Coral, Inc., is based in Cleveland, Ohio. Since its 1978 introduction, Slick 50 has about 30 million users world-wide and retails for about $18 a quart. The company claims to have about 60% of the engine treatment market.
In July, 1996, the FTC issued a complaint against four now-defunct Quaker State subsidiaries, which have been succeeded in interest by the three subsidiaries named in the settlement. The FTC's 1996 complaint charged that ads for Slick 50 claiming improved engine performance and reduced engine wear were deceptive. According to the 1996 complaint, Quaker State's subsidiaries aired television and radio commercials and published brochures carrying claims such as:
--"Every time you cold start your car without Slick 50 protection, metal grinds against metal in your engine";
--"With each turn of the ignition you do unseen damage, because at cold start-up most of the oil is down in the pan. But Slick 50's unique chemistry bonds to engine parts. It reduces wear up to 50% for 50,000 miles";
--"What makes Slick 50 Automotive Engine Formula different is an advanced chemical support package designed to bond a specially activated PTFE to the metal in your engine."
According to the FTC complaint, these claims and similar ones falsely represented that without Slick 50, auto engines generally have little or no protection from wear at start-up and commonly experience premature failure caused by wear. In fact, the complaint alleged, most automobile engines are adequately protected from wear at start-up when they use motor oil as recommended in the owner's manual. Moreover, it is uncommon for engines to experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they have been treated with Slick 50 or not, according to the FTC. Finally, the FTC alleged that Slick 50 neither coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE nor meets military specifications for motor oil additives, as falsely claimed.
The FTC complaint also charged that Slick 50 lacked substantiation for advertising claims that, compared to motor oil alone, the product:
--reduces engine wear;
--reduces engine wear by more than 50%;
--reduces engine wear by up to 50%;
--reduces engine wear at start-up;
--extends the duration of engine life;
--lowers engine temperatures;
--reduces toxic emissions;
--increases gas mileage; and
--increases horsepower.
In addition, the complaint alleged that the company did not have adequate substantiation for its advertising claims that one treatment of Slick 50 continues to reduce wear for 50,000 miles and that it has been used in a significant number of U.S. Government vehicles.
Finally, the complaint challenged ads stating that "tests prove" the engine wear reduction claims make by Slick 50. In fact, according to the FTC complaint, tests do not prove that Slick 50 reduces engine wear at start up, or by 50%, or that one treatment reduces engine wear for 50,000 miles.
The agreement to settle the FTC charges bars any claims that:
--engines lack protection from wear at start-up unless they have been treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product;
--engines commonly experience premature failure caused by wear unless they are treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product; or,
--Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE.
In addition, the agreement will prohibit misrepresentations that Slick 50 or any engine lubricant meets the standards of any organization and misrepresentations about tests or studies.
The settlement also prohibits any claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of engine lubricants unless Quaker State's subsidiaries possess and rely on competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the claims. In addition, it prohibits the Quaker State subsidiaries from claiming that any other Slick 50 motor vehicle lubricant reduces wear on a part, extends the part's life, lowers engine temperature, reduces toxic emissions, increases gas mileage or increases horsepower unless they can substantiate the claim. The subsidiaries also will be required to notify resellers of the product about the settlement with the FTC and the restrictions on advertising claims.
Finally, the agreement holds open the option that the FTC may seek consumer redress. If the private class action suits against Slick 50 currently under litigation do not result in at least $10 million in redress to consumers, the agency reserves its right to file its own federal district court action for consumer redress. In addition, the FTC has reserved its right to seek to intervene in any class action suit to oppose a settlement it believes is not in the public interest.
The Commission vote to approve the proposed consent agreement was 5-0. A summary of the agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies of the complaint, consent agreement, an analysis to aid public comment and an FTC brochure, "Penny Wise or Pump Fuelish" are available on the Internet at the FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710.
Teflon® is a registered trademark of DuPont.
Copyright © 1992-2003 by The Master Strategy Group, all rights reserved
I'm late to the party. Let me see if I have this straight. They, synlube, want me to use a 50 weight oil with ptfe's and no other oil company or manufacturer is smart enough to figure this out for themselves or copy it. I'm sure glad I found this out. I guess this shows that Honda knows nothing about making cars, dosen't it. Honda is so stupid, they are going the other way, to 20 weight oils. Honda's never going to make it in the auto industry if they don't get this stuff straight. Who'd ever buy a car with the wrong oil in it. I guess we're going to see this miracle synlube oil everywhere any time now. If it almost never has to be changed, just think of the gift to the environment this company is. I guess no one is selling a similar product because they just don't have the vision. And to think, they only want $32 a liter, what a bargin. How stupid I've been.....
Hey Barkerman - you is a pretty fart smeller! [Uh.... smart feller] :-)
Y'all might want to email me for some pictures of a neat billboard on I-85 at marker 35 Northbound in South Carolina. Just put the word billboard in the subject line! He he he.....
A hugh percentage of cars out there are under a warranty of some kind. I'll bet that not one of those warranties specifies 50 weight oil and oil changes beyond 5 to 7.5k miles. And this synlube oil is only for engines in good condition which would eliminate a lot of cars out of warranty. So, basically, if you are under warranty or have a worn engine they don't want you. Sounds like a great marketing plan. Sell to people that are willing to void their warranty. That's a good crowd to hook up with. If that's their marketing plan, I can't wait to see what the actually put in the oil. They must have the best secret stuff in the world. I'll bet we have lots of users out there, I just wish we could get some response and uoa' and all that kind of stuff.
quote:Originally posted by Houckster:
Over that 10 year period, Amsoil would have to be installed 10 times and they require a filter change at 6 months (unnecessary in my opinion) to keep the warranty they provide intact. My Ranger uses 5 quarts of oil and the list price is $8.35 for the Series 2000 0W30 which is the oil I'd use if SynLube were not available. Now if you're like me, I'd press for a discount and let's say I can get the price down to $7 a quart. Then there's the filters and their top line filters range from about $9.75 to $28. Let's settle on $10 per filter. That's $55 for each year and that's only if you install it yourself. At the end of 10 years, your costs will be $550 (plus shipping and/or applicable taxes) vs. $195 for SynLube. That's a decent monetary savings of $355 plus the savings in time and the almost complete elimination of waste oil which should not be overlooked. Finally, you can return the oil to SynLube at the end of the oil's service life for a credit towards the purchase of new SynLube.
Regarding your theoretical use of Amsoil oil I can prove you that calculated costs could be lowered. Series 2000 oils are recomended for 35.000 miles use (or one year, whichever comes first) and for reaching mileage "limit" you should use oil anlysis - Amsoil or someone's other. Result is: (at least) just 5 oil changes + 4 oil analysis what means costs almost same as for SynLube. So, SynLube advantages are in handling - oil changes, taking oil samples, sending them, ...
Very interesting and somewhat confusing thread to me. It's convinced me to use either Amsoil or Redline for my next oil change, and to investigate further on oil filers, for my 2000 Ford Focus with 205k km (about 120k miles). Both are available here in Canada at Canadian Tire stores. Up here in Canada, Redline is about $14.00, and Amsoil 2000 is about $12.00 per litre/quart.I'm using Amsoil 2000 in my new John Deere GX335, and I think the engine now runs quieter than the dino oil that was changed out.
Paul.
Paul.
quote:Originally posted by inHaliburton:
... It's convinced me to use either Amsoil or Redline for my next oil change...
Paul.
It's up to you to make a choice (regarding your own preferences, technical data and manufacturers recomendations) but think first about availability of all related "parts". In Canadian Tire stores you can not find Amsoil oil filters and Engine flush which use is recomended if you switch from petroleum oil (but not at must).
If you consider Red line (18.000 miles recomendation change) as one of options more economic solution might be Amsoil 5W-30 Synthetic motor oil (25.000 miles, about $10 per bottle) instead of Series 2000 oil (35.000 miles).
Regarding fact that this thread is named Synlybe and that your and mine posts are non-related to it please send anything of your concern to: gordan_d@yahoo.com
So, have we figured out if anyone is using synlube? This stuff takes quite a leap. They claim that they have a formula that is beyond the abilities of any other chemist in the world to duplicate. It's just hard to believe something I can't see or understand and is not proven to any degree that I can accept. I wish that somebody would step up and accept free oil and run a real test with a lot of mileage, uoa's and peer review.
