> Readers / Listers,
>
> In regards to Slick 50 (a Quaker State product), you should not use this
> stuff in any car (or any other quaker state product).
>
> In 1995 (in believe) Quaker State settled a class action law suit
> concerning Slick 50. Evidently, their claims that slick 50 provided added
> protection were fraudulent and misleading.
>
> I was very upset about this because I was using slick 50 in all 4 of my
> cars for many years... and to discover that I had been cheated was a
> disappointment. (To say the least).
>
> Just a personal opinion.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis Berman
>
> __,__\__
> (_o____o_) Safety Fast
>
> dberman@nortelnetworks.com
>
>
> >Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:34:00 -0500
> >From: Bill Saidel <saidel@camden.rutgers.edu>
> >Subject: probably a repetitive topic...Slick 50
> >
> >Springtime and oil change calls.
> >
> >Oh learned mechanics, here is my question.
> >
> >Putting synthetic in a 60,000 mile engine probably does not make sense.
> >20W-50 is the norm, but what about something like Slick 50. The engine
> has
> >a 54,000 mile history that I don't know. It does mildly leak from the
> rear
> >seal (although significantly less since I added some anonymous seal
> >swelling additive). I don't want to pull the engine until I have to and
> >would like to delay that as long as possible.
> >
> >Is there any positive advantage or negative disadvantage to using an
> >additive like Slick 50?
> >
> >Bill
> >'76B
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|