Originally Posted By: Shannow
Review ANY paper investigating the use of thinner oils, and they ALWAYS state economy/CO2 emissions as the reason for pursuing thinner oils with "adequate" longevity (same horse, just looked at differently depending on the choice of the country).
It's a fair trade-off, it'n no point ditching a car with 150k miles left on the engine, if you can save a few gallons of fuel and ditch it with 75k miles left on the engine.
Just the thin proponents don't like the truth, and continue to come up with falsities (flow, startup wear, tighter clearances, the ubiquitous strawman "epidemic of failed engines", usually requested to point to the "pile" of failed engines) as chaff in the argument to try to prove that it's "better" for the engine, better for the owner...and it IS if you save a few gallons and the car makes it to scrap still running.
None of what you said is important. Poor maintenance practice's are the important factors in short engine life. I use 0-20 for the benefits I see. You may use a very thick oil for whatever reason that suites your engine in your climate. "Strawman" failed engines"? Engines fail using 20 wt oils. Engines fail using 30-50wt oils. So what's new. I replaced my first and only "failed" engine in 1970 in a 66 Chevy 6 banger using Valvoline 10-40. Reason: Previous owner didn't use proper care with the maintenance. Today's engines are better than ever. Oils are better than ever. However, engines still fail regardless of the "Ubiquitous Strawman (had to refer to Webster's for that one) debate over thick vs thin and thin vs thick.
