Technical Slick 50 - Any Good?

Currently reading:
Technical Slick 50 - Any Good?

My thought is that if it was such good stuff to have in your oil, why don't the oil manufacturers put it in? :rolleyes:
It's sold on the basis that it's slippery (it's PTFE). If it's so slippery, what makes it stick to the engine? And PTFE can apparently clog filters.
Have a look here and here.
Not needed on cars like the Stilo; its designed for high mileage cars that have wear, and as hmallett says, is designed to coat everything with PTFE. The one major problem is is that this can cause oil constriction in the extremely narrow oil pipelines which could lead to severe problems.

My advice (oh how halfords has taught me well!) would be to flush the engine out next oil change and just put a decent oil in.
Thanks for that, articles were very interesting and think now I wont bother! Just came across it cheap at Mukro and wondered if it would stop me engine rattling like a diesel...
I have used Slick 50 in a fairly high mileage Rover and have to say had no problems at all but I wouldn't use in a very modern engine as used in the Stilo.

Far better to put your money into a fully-synthetic oil. I use Castrol Edge 0W-30 in my JTD and can recommend it (far less noise on start-up). Obviously you should only use what's recommended for your engine.
PTFE coating principly does work. Some of the race kart engines used to have moving parts coated and it made a difference. But it was not out of the bottle and wasn't just cheap. It makes the engines last longer last longer. Still it didn't mean that you would be able to get through a season with the same engine. PTFE coating is used in the different industries to lower the frictional losses but unlike a bottle treatment it is done professionally.

The problems that can occur are already posted.
I used this MOD spec stuff (XCT??) from Halfords (blue & yellow pack) in my Stilo and could swear there was a difference. It revved more freely & gave around 3 mpg more after using it.

It contained no PTFE and chemically bonded to the metal. I was claimed that you could drain an engine of oil and run it normally for quite a while without damage. I figured at the rate my Stilo drank Selenia it was probably a wise investment!

Last edited:
GUYS STAY CLEAR AWAY FROM THAT CRAP (sorry for the expression but thats what it is) In the states the company got sued big time for false advertisements and what it does. If you dont believe me do a search or look at this page

Check out this quote:
Slick 50 in $20M lawsuit, loses to FTC.


Blue Corral, the manufacturers of the Slick 50 engine oil additive, have been banned by the Federal Trade Commission from making claims about reduced engine wear, increased fuel economy and lower running temperatures in it's advertising in America. The Federal Commission found the company's claims of increased performance and reduced wear were unsubstantiated, and Blue Corral has agreed to pay upwards of $20M in damages to affected customers.
Source: Max Power magazine, March 1998.
Click here to see all the FTC Reports pertaining to Slick50.

DuraLube challenged by Car&Driver, loses to FTC.


The manufacturers of the DuraLube engine additive were dealt a smack in the face by a Car & Driver Magazine report into their product. C&D tried the same tests as Consumer Reports did on ProLong, and had similar results, but in a much quicker time. The C&D engines treated with DuraLube lasted a staggering 11 seconds without oil. You do the math. The Federal Trade Commission dealt with it.....
Click here to see all the FTC Reports pertaining to Duralube.
The magnet-on-your-fuel-line boys

FuelMax loses to FTC for deceptive advertising claims.


The marketers of the Super FuelMAX automotive fuel-line magnet, advertised as providing dramatic fuel-saving and emissions-reducing benefits, have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that their claims were unsubstantiated. These guys claimed that sticking a pair of magnets around your fuel line would increase your gas mileage by 27% whilst reducing harmful pollutants by 42%. The one slight flaw in their plan? There's nothing in fuel that can be affected by magnets......
The FTC alleged that the manufacturers did not possess or rely on reasonable substantiation for the claims they made. The complaint also alleged that the manufacturers falsely represented that tests performed at a certified EPA laboratory prove that Super FuelMAX performed to the above figures. Finally, the FTC charged that ads for Super FuelMAX featuring a testimonial from Alexander Elnekaveh endorsing the product did not reflect Elnekaveh's actual experience with the product or the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use the product. Therefore, the FTC complaint said, the representations concerning the testimonial were false or misleading.
Click here to read the FTC Report on the FTC vs. FuelMax.
Click here to see all the FTC Reports pertaining to FuelMax.

ZMax wins against an FTC settlement for misleading advertising.


The Federal Trade Commission filed suit in a U. S. District Court that sought to halt false and misleading advertising for zMax auto additives and which asked the court to order refunds to consumers who bought the products. The agency alleged that enhanced performance claims for the product were unsubstantiated, that tests cited to support performance claims actually demonstrated that motor oil treated with zMax produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion than motor oil alone, and that the three different products - an engine additive, a fuel line additive and a transmission additive - were all actually mineral oil tinted with food colouring..
Well on 20th March 2003, Speedway Motorsports Inc. (TRK) and Oil-Chem Research Corp., the manufacturers of zMax, announced that they had settled their dispute with the FTC. The Concord, North Carolina-based Speedway said that the dispute was concerning the advertising of zMAX Power System. Marylaurel E. Wilks, VP and general counsel said, "We at Speedway Motorsports are very pleased that the staff of the Federal Trade Commission has specifically confirmed that Oil-Chem can continue to make the following claims in its advertising and promotion of zMAX:".
  • zMAX soaks into metal,
  • zMAX reduces friction,
  • zMAX increases horsepower,
  • zMAX dissipates engine heat,
  • zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits,
  • zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits,
  • zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits,
  • zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
Here's the kicker (from their website): "Oil-Chem and SMI have not admitted any liability in this litigation. However, in order to avoid the significant expense and time involved in the litigation, the FTC, Oil-Chem and SMI have agreed to end the litigation by the signing of an order, which, in summary, states: (a) Oil-Chem and SMI do not admit any liability and continue to deny any liability; (b) The FTC has issued its compliance letter (which confirms that enforcement is not merited for the eight specified claims); (c) Oil-Chem and SMI will not make advertising claims which are not properly substantiated; and (d) Oil-Chem and SMI will offer a refund of up to $1 million, in the aggregate, to certain purchasers of zMAX, who bought zMAX before January 31, 2001."
Click here to read the original FTC Report on the FTC vs. ZMax.
Click here to read the somewhat fuzzy final ruling in this case.
Click here to go to zMax's own site and read the settlement blurb.
Click here to see the FTC court order (PDF file).
Click here to see all the FTC Reports pertaining to zMax.

The last one especially gave me the creeps MINERAL OIL WITH FOOD COLORING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I used oil additives in a metro many years ago, reduced oil consumption which was good but adding a less viscous oil would probably have done the same. Can't see any need for them in a low mileage new car. 6000 mile oil changes are a good idea.