Originally Posted By: Ranchu
My point is: if you don't value CAFE, if you don't care about a 0.5 mpg difference in fuel consumption, wouldn't it be better to use a slightly thicker oil that offers better protection, as recommended by the same manufacturer, for the same vehicle and engine and similar climite; the only difference being it its sold in a different market?
My response is simple: prove it offers "better protection". So far no one has offered any evidence, or even any logical reasoning as to why it would "protect better". Fuel economy has no bearing on my choice of oil, and I'm using 0W20. I made that choice based logic, reason and published data. I really don't care what they use in country XXX, because frankly it just doesn't matter. They have their own reasons for spec'ing oils, and guess what? It involves compromise.
Explain to me why a thicker oil will "protect better", and I'll gladly consider using it. Meanwhile, take a look at
this document. Skip over the stuff about fuel economy and go to the parts on engine wear. Note in particular the part about multi-viscosity oils and film strength. Guess what? Thicker oils do not necessarily equate to thicker films in operation.
I'm not trying to change your mind, or anyone that of anyone else. As I said, reason can never stand up to "belief", that curious word an engineer keeps using. It's just that, belief, not backed up by data. Show me some data that thick oils protect better in a modern gasoline engine, or even make a reasonable hypothesis as to why it would (hint: they do it in Germany isn't a reasonable hypothesis). Until then, I'm going to stick with an oil that is proven to reach optimal viscosity more quickly, provide more adequate cooling, provide lower frictional losses and less frictional seal torque, and have thicker film strength at the top of the piston while still providing adequate film strength for the bearings. In my engine, for my conditions, that's a 20W oil.