OK to start with a caveat, I certainly know less about cars than the large majority of people on this board so I don't present myself as some kind of expert... but the guy who wrote the article linked in the original post does exactly that so he's fair game
There is a lot of misinformation in that article apparent to even someone like me. Some of it could be forgiven as a wsrong but well intentioned simplification for the general audience (eg the explanation of multi-viscosity oils) but there is a lot of just wrong information presented as fact. And howlers that would be apparent to anyone. While I don't doubt that a thinner oil can have benefits in many applications, it is flat out absurd to suggest that switching from GTX 20w50 to Mobil1 (in an unspecified, but presumably thinner grade) in a 1971 Stang alone would increase gas mileage by roughly 60%.
Anyhow, it would take forever to catalog the weirdness, and I got bored mid-way through reading anyhow. SO I googled the guy and came up with this bio:
"has worked with large and small independent fast-lube operators developing strategies for business growth while implementing continuous training programs to sustain their future success.
... consultants specializing in the car wash and fast-lube arena"
Since I know the esteem most of us have for the quikky lube crowd, it makes for some interesting reading at
http://www.carwashmag.com/pdf/april_2005/print/5.cfm
And "lubrication engineer"? I am not a nitpicker about titles, but half my family are Professional Engineers. My previous job title, working for a big multinantional technical company would include the word "engineer" in most jursidictions but in places like Ontario I would not be entitled to that title, because it is a regulated professional credential. And I am unregulated, uncredentialled and barely professional. This guy seems like less of an engineer than I am. And I ain't no engineer.