Teflon - Slick50 - Synlube + Oils & Additives

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by willix

You guys need to do some homework before you throw money at useless additives. http://http://www.bobistheoilguy.com...ubbthreads.php

the guys there do like this one...http://www.lubegard.com/~/C-112/LUBE...uid+Protectant

[GasSavers_Scott]

I know I have said this before, what I use is a synthetic blend with 10% 30 weight and why? The FAA in the late 90's started cracking down on plane owners who dumped in additives, so they did a test to find the best oil, be it synthetic or natural. They found synthetics don't wash carbon out of the rings and you get sticky rings or rings that wear out faster, also synthetics don't hang on the crank when you shut the engine off. So a blend will have the natural oil wash out the rings, while the synthetic does is lubricity job by reducing friction and the 10% 30 weight keeps oil on the bearings after you shut off a hot engine.

I have been using this for almost 3 years now with no ill side effects to report, the only thing being is synthtics will make for more oil leaks due to its ability to get past seals.

I used to be a Slick 50 fan, it made th lifters in my Ford Aerostar quiet down, but like any good Ford blew the hell up after 140K.

I use Hastings oil filters, since they are a filter inside the can, Fram now uses carboard epoxied at both ends and stuffed inside the oil filter can, other companies use less sheats of filter material.

Reguardless of oil change claims, I always change my oil at 3000, filter included.

[willix]

this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHmMl...eature=related

[Xcelplus]

FAA approves the use of Xcelplus in aircraft engines. The complete FAA testing results are on the web site (they show less wear than normal)

www.xcelplus.com.au

Originally Posted by Scott

The FAA in the late 90's started cracking down on plane owners who dumped in additives,

[Xcelplus]

Where's the full write up? A full write up always tells you more.

Other that it's an impressive video. More oil companies should provide a little more in the way of objective measurement... and make it easier to get this kind of info. Most companies won't provide more than the basic info about their oils.

As Xcelplus does not affect the performance of your oil... but treats the metal it works synergistically rather than in competition with the oils. Xcelplus is also PERMANENT... so it will keep working even after you change oils.

Thus you would expect a significant decrease in wear even if you add Xcelplus to an engine already using Mobil 1 eg. 50% decrease

Originally Posted by willix

this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHmMl...eature=related

[Xcelplus]

What this demonstrates reasonably is that a reduction in temperature extends life.

Xcelplus also reduces temperature... so that's also one reason why it improves engine life (and the life of the oil).

The testing on acidity was interesting... although adding Slick-50 to the tests may not be appropriate... as Slick-50 is meant to treat the metal not the oil (even though it comes in an oil).

Xcelplus on the other hand contains no oil just the active ingredient... and only treats the metal. As one of the causes of acid build up in the oil is temperature (reactions procedd faster at higher temperatures) Xcelplus would reduce acid build up by decreasing temperature.

Even better Xcelplus would work synergistically (together) with any existing oil to improve lubrication.

Xcelplus does not recommend treating automatic gear boxes because they cannot gaurantee there is nothing in them that would slip... so it's kind of a moot point NB. I have treated the odd auto gearbox on occassion without problems... just to prove a point.

The point is that there is no reason not to use the best oil that you can afford... and to improve that protection using a metal treatment.

The link on stats makes many good points.

If you're dubious then read the tests (wide range of tests are available) or test it yourself?

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

the guys there do like this one...http://www.lubegard.com/~/C-112/LUBE...uid+Protectant

[Xcelplus]

As Xcelplus contains no PTFE (it was a gimick we used early on) it's not going to be filtered out. Even though oil filters filter to 40 microns they won't filter Xcelplus out (it's active ingredient is a polymer).

Xcelplus is a metal treatment: it won't affect the properties of your oil.

However because Xcelplus drops the temperature inside your engine (less friction) then the additives in your oil will last longer.

Win-win... that's synergism!

:-)

Originally Posted by trollbait

I wouldn't be surprised if the filter actually removes most of PTFE in the additive. Then there is also oil change interval. A short one, with filter change, would likely prevent the build up of PTFE.

These optional additives may not contain the the detergents, acid neutralizers, and other stuff found in a basic motor oil. Diluting them out will shorten the oil change interval. Or they have them in the wrong ratios. Some of the required additives have synergistic interaction with each other. Like dietary minerals. Your body can't make use of calcium for bone growth without the proper amount of magnesium, and a potassium level way higher than your sodium level will stop your heart. Throw the additive package in your motor oil out of whack, and you may have deterious effects.

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by Xcelplus

What this demonstrates reasonably is that a reduction in temperature extends life.

The point is that there is no reason not to use the best oil that you can afford... and to improve that protection using a metal treatment.

The link on stats makes many good points.

If you're dubious then read the tests (wide range of tests are available) or test it yourself?

it wasn't my intent to attack your product, i just wanted to show that some additives could be legit.

i agree that using the best is a wise investment--i've tried to illustrate to other members that true PAO synthetics are actually less expensive(due to fewer changes) than dino oil because that is often an argument(cost vs need).

i appreciate the acknowledgment of the "statistics" link--it strikes a nerve for me when stats are used and spun to promote a political view or agenda.

and yes, i believe the experience of testing is THE best way to judge a product.

[Xcelplus]

Sorry... must have missed this post earlier.

www.xcelplus.com.au

in the "Tests" section

has lots of tests... so we didn't link to something specific.

Nobody complained that the couldn't find the tests so we assume they found them OK.

All documents are clearly identified and the originals of the FAA document are on the web

http://www.xcelplus.com.au/docs/faa_files/faa1.pdf

196 pages of very dry writing is not very exciting... so we summarised it:

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

The idea is that you can verify the summary is correct by checking against the original document.

:-)

Originally Posted by bobc455

Xcelplus,

Please be mindful that this site does not allow you to advertise a product through the forums.

We decided to let your prior posts remain since they were directly relevant to the discussion, and somewhat informative.

However when you are asked for substantiation of any claims like this, the burden of proof would still be upon yourself - therefore, instead of just saying "write to consumer reports" you should post a link directly to the article, or post a copy of the article (along with the issue information in which it was published), or a similar method of directly providing the substantiation.

And the same with the FAA - if you wish to quote a document, please provide their direct quote (or link) as well as a way that any member of the general public can get ahold of this document (such as a document number, method to contact the FAA to get a copy of the document, and any other relevant information). "Contact the FAA" is NOT a 3rd-party substantiation of your claim. Nor is it acceptable to just say "visit our site to catch the video" - rather, you should post a DIRECT link to your relevant information (such as a post to your link).

So please understand that we made a decision to allow you to violate the rules, and please realize that this will require a substantial effort by yourself to support your claims.

This site receives plenty of wild unsubstantiated claims, and if real substantiation cannot be provided we will deem any related posts to be "spam" which will result in deletion.

Thanks,

-Bob C.

[Xcelplus]

You made your point most reasonably... thank you.

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

it wasn't my intent to attack your product, i just wanted to show that some additives could be legit.

.