Oil threads like these usually degrade into a simple popularity contest. Similar to "tattoos of skulls are the best!"
Actual useful "information" about oil, needs to be based on science (rather than popular opinion) to have any meaningful validity. Even 20,000 test cases of one each, don't tell you much of anything if the "test parameters" were not defined or controlled in any way.
"It hasn't broken yet", is either a loose, unfounded endorsement for an oil choice, or a testimonial on the robustness of the machine it was used in, with no real basic validity for either.
"Brands" mean exactly nothing for a scientific evaluation, as the branders may change internal formulation whenever they choose, for whatever reason they choose, and have no requirement to change the labeling or inform the purchaser of the product when a formulation change has occurred. Sometimes, they'll even tell you this on the product label. Usually, they'll have this disclaimer offered from the company elsewhere if you look really hard for it, as a lawyer would do.
So, "Been using (place favorite brand here) for 20 years and haven't had a problem", has no real meaning, because the formulation used 20 years ago has had umpteen + changes to it since the brand's offering 20 years ago.
"Been using this oil for the last 2 miles", has exactly the same confidence assessment as "Been using this oil for the last 100,000 miles".
Where are the wear measurements? Where is the wear comparison with the exact same machine using a "control brand batch" sample, under the exact same load, temperature, filtration, and other identical conditions? Actual use in the field is highly varied, and that alone is enough to invalidate individual testimonials.
I've said this before, but all the "information" (such as it is) is stacked against the purchaser, which is exactly why oil threads start and degrade into popularity contests rather that actual useful information.
Oil company marketing is about "Promoting the brand" rather than promoting the formula. The formula is never published, even though the formula is exactly what the consumer needs to do a meaningful evaluation among brands or samples within brands. I believe there is actually "intent to confuse" the purchaser. If all the information you have is about brand and none about formula, the only basis you have for selection >becomes< brand oriented. If they can associate their brand with something you like or find attractive (like a race car, bike, or sexy image), you'll buy their brand, whatever the internal formula actually is. It's called appealing to the human baser instincts, which we all have without any propensity for logical evaluation. For many, thinking objectively is hard. Reacting with gut instinct is easy. It's the human condition. What oil? Oh, let's pick this one I heard about recently, I'll have another beer and mentally coast for the rest of the day.
Test houses can evaluate and give an endorsement stamp (JASO, API, SAE, etc.) which the oil company then pays them for adding onto their label (which generally adds to the consumer cost, and becomes distasteful to the non-discerning consumer because of that extra cost).
Then it becomes a matter of trust for the consumer to expect that the manufacturer won't change the formulation from batch to batch on future samples.
These test houses usually publish their test criteria and rationale for categorical placement under which a product can receive their endorsement.
Researching this data is much harder (actual work) than posting an internet query on a public forum to solicit opinion. But, actual measurable and meaningful data about what you are choosing can be found, ... if the allure of coasting toward another beer isn't too dominant, that is.
Cheers,
