How did you conclude that all the problems of the 6.2 are related to the oil? There are no investigation results yet. At the same time, the 0-20 oil was also on the K2 generation, on which people drove hundreds of thousands of miles around the world.
The majority of bearing falures almost always end up being oil related. Dirt in the oil usually made up of soot and/or sludge and hard carbon or contaminated oil that is broken down and has a loss of viscosity, most commonly fuel in these DI engines. Oil starvation is also a possibility, but this is not a common denominator I am seeing with the current 6.2l engine failures.
The K2 generation was not without its problems, but it was also a slightly different beast when it comes to both the engine and the platform. I big difference is the radiator shutters in the newer generation of these trucks for again MPG on the highway, to make a brick more areodynamic. Not entirely sure how much closing the shutters elevates the engine oil temperature, but it cannot help it.
I have not really put this out here yet, but I am really starting to think the DFM system is also another major contributing factor to the current generation of L87 failures.
With the AFM system you pretty much drop either 2 or 4 cylinders at a time. Pretty much a "symetrical" situation where you would never have fewer than 4 cylinders rotating the engine mass and propelling the vehicle. So the entire engine load is spread across no fewer than 4 rod bearings.
With the DFM system you can end up with an asymetrical operation of a single cylinder rotating the engine mass and propelling the vehicle. Then add to this the fact that the cylinder deactivation is constantly jumping around in different sequences. It is not likely the same 1 cylinder is always being called upon.
With the DFM system you have a crazy hodge podge of possibly 0 to 8 cylinders driving/rotating the engine. Assume, but have not confirmed that possibly during Decel With Fuel Cutoff (DFCO) the DFM engine may possibly deactivate all 8 cylinders for a period of time. But any other time, the system is jumping around and possible rotating the engine mass with as few as 1 cylinder. Think about the rod bearing loading when a single cylinder is trying to turn the engine rotating mass, compressing air in the deactivated cylinders, turning the torque converter and transmission and trying to somewhat propel the vehicle. Think about the forward and backward loading on the crank thrust bearing when all the crazy cylinder deactivation is going on. I beleive there are like 27 different cylinder deactivation combinations/routines for the DFM system vs probably 2 general combinations for the AFM system, might be more when you factor load into the equation, but in general is it pretty much a 4-6-8 cyliinder configuration not far from the early Cadillac V8 from the early 1980's.
While operating on as few as 1 cylinder may be great in philosophy, not sure it is wise in practice. I think we are all seeing down side of all the effort to squeeze a few more MPG out of a 6000 brick.
Too many parts, too many instructions, too many variables that cannot be controlled outside of the lab/developement area, too many things to go wrong.