Wow niles, nice set up questions.
As I often advocate, there are always variables that we fail to consider, so let me throw out some qualifiers as I answer your questions so that we can minimize the eeks
First, that forgetting thing gets easier with each passing year. I've gotten so good at it I sometimes I think I've forgotten more than I've ever learned!
Qualifier: I don't push my engines hard any more so there's no need to consider the abuse factor.
With our moderate climate and my car not running hot and hard (easy now!) I use 10w/30 dino juice of the latest/highest API quality grade available. If I lived in a hotter clime and genuinely pushed my car hard for prolonged periods, I'd go for a 20w/50.
I am purposely avoiding brand names because, quite frankly, I don't think it matters as much as most people, AS LONG AS IT IS A QUALITY BRAND THAT MEETS THE LATEST SPECS. Besides, in a world of Quaker State-Pennzoil, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Union 76-Phillips66-Conoco, ad naseum, those brand loyalty lines blur more and more. I can't help but chuckle about some of the people I've had in classes over the years that swore by Pennzoil and just knew (because Uncle Ezra told them so) that that Quaker State stuff was junk.
Wonder what they're thinkin' now?
And my not using synthetics isn't an unstated dislike or distrust of them, I just don't think that the conditions I operate in warrant their additional benefits. I don't keep vehicles long enough to gain the benefit, if any. I've had customers who follow first rate maintenance practices, get 2-300,000 miles of service on gasoline engines with the "old fashioned stuff". I've also seen users that can destroy a perfectly good engine with the same stuff. SERVICE FACTORS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS MATTER. I've never run across an engine failure that could conclusively be pinned on the lubricants fault. There has always been some other factor. Of course if brand loyalty were an issue I also always heard; "Well, that was never a problem for my previous
oil".
Accusump? They really look neat!!
We could get into a long discussion about hydrodynamic lubrication. But not now. The theory of the Accusump premise is, well, accurate. It is true that most engine wear occurs at start up. (p.s. think about that in the context of the above discussion re. dino vs syn). If you accept that premise, then what's really important is how quickly the
oil starts moving through the system. Now we're back to that pesky viscosity stuff again. Which could lead us to low temperature flow, high temperature........I digress. So, (QUALIFIER) in my opinion, if you use the correct viscosity (avoiding the "more is better" syndrome, or it's cousin, "bigger numbers is better".....................and here I am addressing a bunch of guys who have to have over 500 cubes and 600 hp in a 2300 pound car. Where's the L for my forehead?) then hydrodynamic flow works fine. Dam*, there I go, talking about that flow stuff again instead of pressure (bring in another L!) If you expect your engine to sit for prolonged periods without the crank rotating, or you insist on using too viscous of an
oil, and you want to see if you can get 500,000 miles out of your engine, then the Accusump will do you some good. Otherwise, it really looks neat. And it gives you something cool to talk about when you're at a track event or a show. The last point is none too insignificant when dealing what obviously is an ego mobile. Lastly, if having one makes you more secure about the expenditure you've made on your engine, then "that's a good thing".