home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky rec.autos:26884 rec.autos.tech:15478
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!charnel!rat!polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu!rteasdal
- From: rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Rusty)
- Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.autos.tech
- Subject: Slick 50 in aluminum engine?
- Message-ID: <1992Nov16.070149.4080@rat.csc.calpoly.edu>
- Date: 16 Nov 92 07:01:49 GMT
- Organization: Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, CSc Department
- Lines: 33
- Nntp-Posting-Host: polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu
-
-
- Okay, auto.wizards, ponder this one:
-
- My '91 Nissan NX 2000 (greatly beloved) is now in the low
- twenties on accumulated mileage, and the engine seems to have broken
- in quite nicely. Now's the time I plan to start treating it very well
- indeed; I generally adhere to the 3000 mile oil change regimen except
- under trying circumstances.
-
- I'd planned to add a quart of Slick 50 at the next oil and
- filter change, the first one ever. I've heard arguments both pro and
- con with regard to such additives - suffice it to say that I am at
- the least willing to try it (and to _document_ whether or not there
- are increases in mileage, et al.!)
-
- However, I had a conversation over the weekend which gave me
- pause. I spoke with a man who was a former Toyota service manager,
- now retired, who claims that Slick 50 and other such treatments are
- largely useless in engines with aluminum block and heads (such as
- mine), apocryphally because of surface treating applied to the metal
- surfaces to prevent heat damage. I was skeptical, but he was quite
- insistent, claiming to have seen a study by the SAE or some such.
-
- Any comment? Sounds like bullshit to me. I mean, PTFE does
- wet aluminum frying plans quite nicely...
-
-
-
-
- --
- |||||||| Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -- (Rusty) ||||||||
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle
-