# Slick 50 engine treatment ( or similar)



## francispj (Feb 23, 2017)

Has anyone used a product like this on their diesil engines.
I drive a 330d 2010 e90 28th 165000km 
It runs beautifully but thought this may be good insurance.
I use full synthetic diesil Oil.....maybe thats sufficient. Yes?

Sent from my LG-H815 using Bimmerfest mobile app


----------



## jck66 (Nov 28, 2017)

Oil additives are probably not recommended (I don't have my owner's manual handy). If you are using the correct oil in the engine I believe you should be OK. Personally I wouldn't use an additive.


----------



## n1das (Jul 22, 2013)

What *jck66 *said.

What will an oil additive do for the oil that a high quality synthetic oil CANNOT do?

The only thing that should ever be added to the high quality LL-04 synthetic oil in your engine is MORE high quality LL-04 synthetic oil, to top the oil level off if necessary.


----------



## alacey (Mar 14, 2018)

Most oil additives are jut snake oil and will not extend the life of your engine any more than proper maintenance would. When I was at Cummins, we would run engine for hundreds of thousands of miles using conventional oil and 15-20-30k mile oil change intervals depending on the tests we were running. 

If you are worried about engine wear, the best thing you can do is stick to your recommended oil change intervals and do not rev the engine at too high of rpm for about 10-15 minutes after a cold start until the oil to get to operating temp. Most lifetime wear of any engine comes from those first 10-15 minutes when the oil is cold because it is too thick to properly lubricate the whole engine. Reving your engine high when the oil is still cold for just a minute will probably cause more wear on your engine than a few hours of hard driving with the oil at operating temp.


----------



## Doug Huffman (Apr 25, 2015)

While investigating OCI at TDIClub.com it was said that OTR engines with 1-micron bypass filters had OCI same as overhaul interval, ~500,000 miles. Much effort was devoted to plumbing bypass filters into TDI***8217;s.


----------



## Autoputzer (Mar 16, 2014)

I used the stuff on a gasoline engine back in the 1990's. Before using it, I could never get 20.0 MPG out of the car. Afterwards, the MPG would go over 20.0 MPG regularly. I'm talking an MPG improvement of just a few percent, maybe 5%. That might be explained away by other variables. What I did notice was that the oil consumption on the 70k mile engine went down, from a quart every 2800 miles, to a quart about every 3500 miles, and stayed there until I sold the car at about 100k miles.

I wrote a letter to the original producer of Slick 50, Petrolon, before I used it. This was all pre-Internet. They sent me a report done in Germany by TUV, saying that fuel economy was improved by as much as 5%. Back then, a lot of cheap cars had carburetors. One of the things that they always had to do was adjust the idle speed back down after the engine was treated with Slick 50.

The problem with Slick 50 back in the day was that it would clog oil filters.

The Slick 50 of today is not he Slick 50 of the 1990's. The brand has changed hands several times The original producer of Slick 50 was a guy named John Bishop.

http://www.bishopsoriginal.eu/faq_e.htm#Q:_**_Why_such_unusual_name__


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

Autoputzer said:


> ... What I did notice was that the oil consumption on the 70k mile engine went down, from a quart every 2800 miles, to a quart about every 3500 miles
> http://www.bishopsoriginal.eu/faq_e.htm#Q:_**_Why_such_unusual_name__


Uh, did you account for the engine oil included with the additive in the total for oil consumption?....

Of course, diesel engines have often been found to "gain" oil with miles - the diesel fuel contaminates the engine oil.... so this applies more to gassers.

TM


----------



## Autoputzer (Mar 16, 2014)

Pierre Louis said:


> Uh, did you account for the engine oil included with the additive in the total for oil consumption?....
> 
> Of course, diesel engines have often been found to "gain" oil with miles - the diesel fuel contaminates the engine oil.... so this applies more to gassers.
> 
> TM


Yes.

This was the late-1980's and early-1990's, and it was a Ford. Fords of that era burned a lot of oil. I worked in the courier office of a bank in college back then. They had about 20 Fords, and they all pretty much went through a quart of conventional oil in about 2000 miles.

I took care of my mother's car, a 1985 Mercury with a 5.0 liter V8 (low-output, about 140 h.p.). I started using Mobil 1 after about 1500 miles. The oil consumption was about 2300 miles up until about 10k miles, which I attributed to the lower volatility of synthetic oil (less evaporation). Then it dropped off to a quart about every 2800 miles. That was because it took that long for the piston rings to fully seat using synthetic oil. Oil "economy" stayed at about 2800 miles/quart until I put the Slick 50 in at around 70k miles. I'd go 7500 miles on oil changes. The car took five quarts, but that didn't quite take it up to the full mark. So, the first top-off was at about 1500 mile before the Slick 50, and about 1800 miles afterwards. I'd have to add another quart at about 5000-5300 miles on the oil change. That top-off would get me to the next oil change.

After "Slicking" the engine, I'd do a short fill on that second top-off, saving that 1/4 quart of synthetic oil. Hey, $2 is $2. ... more so back then.

I DIY my own oil changes on my BMW's, even during the free maintenance period since I live 93 miles from the "my" dealership. I measure what I drain out. My 2015 535i, at 50k miles, burns about 750ml in about every 7500 to 8000 miles.


----------



## eric_dot_com (Aug 1, 2017)

francispj said:


> Has anyone used a product like this on their diesil engines.
> I drive a 330d 2010 e90 28th 165000km
> It runs beautifully but thought this may be good insurance.
> I use full synthetic diesil Oil.....maybe thats sufficient. Yes?
> ...


Don't look for trouble because it will eventually find you instead. If there's nothing wrong with your car leave it be. why use additives ? You want insurance ?
Change your oil more often than not don't wait until the maximum interval. The earlier the better. Don't forget change the fuel filter also on every second oil changes if possible. Change air filter on every oil changes. And use not the best additives available but the best diesel fuel available in your area.

Sent from my iPhone using Bimmerfest mobile app


----------



## alacey (Mar 14, 2018)

eric_dot_com said:


> Don't look for trouble because it will eventually find you instead. If there's nothing wrong with your car leave it be. why use additives ? You want insurance ?
> Change your oil more often than not don't wait until the maximum interval. The earlier the better. Don't forget change the fuel filter also on every second oil changes if possible. Change air filter on every oil changes. And use not the best additives available but the best diesel fuel available in your area.
> 
> [/url]


In regards to oil additives, I agree that changing your oil sooner before the additives in the oil breakdown will probably have the same if not better effect.

However, I disagree on the diesel fuel additives depending on where you live. Most states in the US have very crappy fuel with a minimum cetane rating of 40 with most fuel stations being below 45 when tested. The only US states that require a higher rating than this is Texas(48 minimum) and California(53 minimum). Europe has a 51 cetane rating minimum.

The optimal cetane rating for most diesel engines is about 48 or above, but higher reving diesels like the diesel engines in our BMW's probably require a higher optimal cetane rating to decrease ignition delay at higher rpms. Most diesel fuel stations just add the same type of additives that you would add to your tank to their regular fuel and sell it as "premium" diesel fuel so in many cases it is cost effective to just get the regular fuel and add the additives yourself. For those living outside of Texas, California, Europe, or anywhere else that does not have a minimum cetane rating of at least 48, then I would recommend cetane additives especially one that increases lubricity for the overly sensitive CP4.2 pumps these engines have.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

BMW suggests higher cetane, namely 51, but has stated in writing that its engines can take lower cetane as well as diesel fuel in the North American market. To say otherwise without data is not OK.

Even the fairly sparse data available shows cetane to be at 45 or higher in most areas where it is tested. Its likely most fuel producers wish not to face the serious fines for not being "in spec" and go over at least a little to stay within the guidelines.

PL


----------



## alacey (Mar 14, 2018)

Pierre Louis said:


> BMW suggests higher cetane, namely 51, but has stated in writing that its engines can take lower cetane as well as diesel fuel in the North American market. To say otherwise without data is not OK.
> 
> Even the fairly sparse data available shows cetane to be at 45 or higher in most areas where it is tested. Its likely most fuel producers wish not to face the serious fines for not being "in spec" and go over at least a little to stay within the guidelines.
> 
> PL


When I was at Cummins, we had Southwest Research Institute do an independent study of cetane ratings in various states. In states that only had the minimum US 40 cetane rating, almost all fell between 42 and 45 with very few exceptions of being higher.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

alacey said:


> .... For those living outside of Texas, California, Europe, or anywhere else that does not have a minimum cetane rating of at least 48, then I would recommend cetane additives especially one that increases lubricity for the overly sensitive CP4.2 pumps these engines have.


There are three things I find wrong or lacking about this sentence.

1) Cetane has nothing to do with lubricity. Please don't conflate them; they measure different properties of diesel fuel.
2) While lubricity can be a problem causing pump failures, the almost complete presence of 5% biodiesel in the USA/Canada (higher some places) adds enough (IMO) lubricity to alleviate concerns.
3) CA emission states - and TX is *NOT* - have generally better diesel quality than others. Standards adopted by the CA states generally have fuel that equates to Cetane 51, along with some other stuff.

There are several threads in this forum (and on e90post's diesel forum) that have discussed this stuff for the last 7-10 years.


----------



## n1das (Jul 22, 2013)

n1das said:


> What *jck66 *said.
> 
> What will an oil additive do for the oil that a high quality synthetic oil CANNOT do?
> 
> The only thing that should ever be added to the high quality LL-04 synthetic oil in your engine is MORE high quality LL-04 synthetic oil, to top the oil level off if necessary.


We are getting off-topic talking about fuel additives. The OP asked about Slick 50 engine treatment for the OIL. I stand by my earlier post (above).

Absolutely NO OIL ADDITIVES of any kind should be used. The only thing that should ever be added to the high quality LL-04 rated synthetic oil in a BMW diesel engine is MORE high quality LL-04 rated synthetic oil, to top off the oil level if necessary.

What will a snake oil additive such as Slick 50 do for the engine that a high quality diesel rated synthetic oil CANNOT do?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## alacey (Mar 14, 2018)

floydarogers said:


> There are three things I find wrong or lacking about this sentence.
> 
> 1) Cetane has nothing to do with lubricity. Please don't conflate them; they measure different properties of diesel fuel.
> 2) While lubricity can be a problem causing pump failures, the almost complete presence of 5% biodiesel in the USA/Canada (higher some places) adds enough (IMO) lubricity to alleviate concerns.
> ...


1. I did not equate cetante to lubricity. Cetane refers to ignition of the fuel. I said "especially" referring to using an additive that also has good lubricity properties in addition to increasing cetane if you are choose to use additives.

2. While I agree that bio-diesel does add sufficient lubricity better than than "adequate" 520 HFRR scar rating and a B5 blend would get you to the "desired" 460 HFRR scar rating. Bio-diesel is not at every pump and if one is going to choose to put in an additive at every fill up then at least make sure it is one that increases lubricity for those "just in case" moments for when you fill up at a station that does not have bio-diesel like the few that don't here (LINK).

3. Not sure what is being inferred here, but Texas does publish an annual fuel study every year by region(LINK). Note on the diesel fuel analysis chart is on page 24, that even though Texas has a minimum of 48, there were some regions that averaged below that with the minimum being 45.13.

My post was a opinion piece stating that I disagree in what was stated that fuel additives aren't needed, and that I think it varies depending on where you live based on experience and knowledge gained throughout my professional career. It was in no way intended to infer that I think everyone should use additives or that no one should. However, if you do choose to add any cetane additives, at least make it one that also increases lubricity.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

alacey said:


> 1. I did not equate cetante to lubricity. Cetane refers to ignition of the fuel. I said "especially" referring to using an additive that also has good lubricity properties in _*addition *_to increasing cetane if you are choose to use additives.
> 
> 3. Not sure what is being inferred here, but Texas does publish an annual fuel study every year by region...


I missed the double-predicate term (or whatever it's called) in my first reading. I like separate sentences for separate subjects.

TX and CA states (and EU ftm) do not have the same standards for diesel; it's wrong to group them together. The TX numbers you quote are "accidental", while the CA states are not.

CA diesel standards for lubricity are no better than the rest of the USA; by your logic everyone in them should be using an enhancer. But there is no data (maybe BMW has some but they're not talking) to suggest that cars in CA states have more pump failures than anywhere else.

At the end of the day, there's not a lot of good data to base a decision on. I prefer to go with BMW's recommendations, as I'm really wary about marketing claims.


----------



## alacey (Mar 14, 2018)

floydarogers said:


> I missed the double-predicate term (or whatever it's called) in my first reading. I like separate sentences for separate subjects.
> 
> TX and CA states (and EU ftm) do not have the same standards for diesel; it's wrong to group them together. The TX numbers you quote are "accidental", while the CA states are not.
> 
> ...


I think you are misreading what I am saying and are putting your own thoughts into my posts. I grouped Texas and California together because they are the only states in the US that has cetane standards higher than the US 40(which is true). Nothing more. In fact this is exactly what I said....

"_ Most states in the US have very crappy fuel with a minimum cetane rating of 40 with most fuel stations being below 45 when tested. The only US states that require a higher rating than this is Texas(48 minimum) and California(53 minimum). Europe has a 51 cetane rating minimum. _

I only mentioned cetane which has nothing to do with lubricity so where you keep getting this notion that I talking about lubricity here I have no idea. The only part I mentioned lubricity was IF you are going to add any cetane additives depending on the fuel in your area then you might as well get one that also lubricates as an added benefit due to the highly sensitive CP4.2 pump.


----------



## eric_dot_com (Aug 1, 2017)

floydarogers said:


> There are three things I find wrong or lacking about this sentence.
> 
> 1) Cetane has nothing to do with lubricity. Please don't conflate them; they measure different properties of diesel fuel.
> 2) While lubricity can be a problem causing pump failures, the almost complete presence of 5% biodiesel in the USA/Canada (higher some places) adds enough (IMO) lubricity to alleviate concerns.
> ...


thanks for bringing that up. 
don't forget to mention that california have something that other states don't have and that is premium diesel fuel by propel is called Diesel HPR with cetane number of a whopping 75 ! and its lubricity level 'meets' european standard and 'exceed' the US standards. and guess where the next stop for Diesel HPR ? you guessed it right, TEXAS. :thumbup:


----------



## eric_dot_com (Aug 1, 2017)

alacey said:


> In regards to oil additives, I agree that changing your oil sooner before the additives in the oil breakdown will probably have the same if not better effect.
> 
> However, I disagree on the diesel fuel additives depending on where you live. Most states in the US have very crappy fuel with a minimum cetane rating of 40 with most fuel stations being below 45 when tested. The only US states that require a higher rating than this is Texas(48 minimum) and California(53 minimum). Europe has a 51 cetane rating minimum.
> 
> The optimal cetane rating for most diesel engines is about 48 or above, but higher reving diesels like the diesel engines in our BMW's probably require a higher optimal cetane rating to decrease ignition delay at higher rpms. Most diesel fuel stations just add the same type of additives that you would add to your tank to their regular fuel and sell it as "premium" diesel fuel so in many cases it is cost effective to just get the regular fuel and add the additives yourself. For those living outside of Texas, California, Europe, or anywhere else that does not have a minimum cetane rating of at least 48, then I would recommend cetane additives especially one that increases lubricity for the overly sensitive CP4.2 pumps these engines have.


california and texas are the only two states in america that provide Diesel HPR. its a premium diesel fuel by propel. it was known as 'propel biofuel' 10 years ago. it has a cetane rating of 75. thats right, 75 ! because of what you said that texas and california are the only states that require higher cetane ratings, Diesel HPR is available through out california and texas by now. propel started serving california 3 years ago and i must tell you it is what californians like me have been waiting for. Diesel HPR numbers vs biodiesel is staggeringly better. it even meets european standard in lubricity and it 'exceeds' the US standard. so in essence with Diesel HPr, you get the best of both worlds. this is not new news, its just haven't re surfaced more than enough on this forum. it needs to. diesel owners in general, not only californians or texans deserve to know whats best fuel available for their diesel engines. but californians and texas are lucky enough to get their hands on these premium diesel fuel than any other people in the states.


----------



## edycol (Jul 8, 2015)

eric_dot_com said:


> california and texas are the only two states in america that provide Diesel HPR. its a premium diesel fuel by propel. it was known as 'propel biofuel' 10 years ago. it has a cetane rating of 75. thats right, 75 ! because of what you said that texas and california are the only states that require higher cetane ratings, Diesel HPR is available through out california and texas by now. propel started serving california 3 years ago and i must tell you it is what californians like me have been waiting for. Diesel HPR numbers vs biodiesel is staggeringly better. it even meets european standard in lubricity and it 'exceeds' the US standard. so in essence with Diesel HPr, you get the best of both worlds. this is not new news, its just haven't re surfaced more than enough on this forum. it needs to. diesel owners in general, not only californians or texans deserve to know whats best fuel available for their diesel engines. but californians and texas are lucky enough to get their hands on these premium diesel fuel than any other people in the states.


Did Californians and Texans piss their pants how lucky they are?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eric_dot_com (Aug 1, 2017)

edycol said:


> Did Californians and Texans piss their pants how lucky they are?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lmao. Hey man, everybody else in every part of the country got a chance to have deletes on their car freely without the hassles. We, Californians, can't just have a delete just because that's what we want. So in a way, we will take what we can get.

Sent from my iPhone using Bimmerfest mobile app


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

alacey said:


> ... The only US states that require a higher rating than this is Texas(48 minimum) and California(53 minimum)...


We're on the same page. Except the pedant in me can't avoid pointing out that you're ignoring the other 12 California emissions states, which also have their fuel.


----------



## edycol (Jul 8, 2015)

eric_dot_com said:


> Lmao. Hey man, everybody else in every part of the country got a chance to have deletes on their car freely without the hassles. We, Californians, can't just have a delete just because that's what we want. So in a way, we will take what we can get.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Bimmerfest mobile app


How does that relates to delete? I am not sure you want delete. Just got back from Paris and Madrid and boy does diesel air bites.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

