Motul customer support resonse

[GI_GRIFF]

Response from Motul customer support regarding their "greatness" after I questioned them.



Hi Joel,

Thank you for reaching out to Motul USA Technical Support and for your interest in Motul 8100 ECO-lite 0W-16.

You’ve raised a thoughtful and well-reasoned question regarding the value of this oil versus more widely available and sometimes less expensive alternatives.

It’s true that many modern 0W-16 engine oils will meet the minimum requirements for your 2025 Toyota RAV4 AWD 2.5L non-hybrid engine especially when paired with regular service. That said, there are meaningful technical differences that explain why Motul 8100 ECO-lite 0W-16 may justify a premium when compared to other options.

​

---

Key Technical Differentiators

1. Base Oil Quality and Formulation Discipline
Motul 8100 ECO-lite is formulated using 100% synthetic base oils, including Group III+ or higher stocks. These provide superior oxidative stability, lower volatility (resulting in less oil burn-off), and stronger high-temperature film retention than conventional synthetic blends typically used by mass-market brands.

2. Built for Low Viscosity, High Protection
The balance of low viscosity and reliable protection is critical for 0W-16 applications. Our formula incorporates friction modifiers and anti-wear additives designed to maintain robust engine protection, even under light-film conditions typical of modern high-efficiency engines.

3. Exceeding Standards, Not Just Meeting Them
While many oils are engineered to simply pass ILSAC GF-6B and API SP requirements, Motul products are designed to exceed them. This includes added focus on oil durability, cleanliness, and performance under extreme conditions.

4. Engineering-First Philosophy
Motul is a lubricant-only company not a fuel or consumer goods brand which means we are solely focused on pushing the science of lubrication forward. Every formula we produce is purpose-built by chemical engineers to deliver maximum performance and protection.

​

---

Comparative Technical Specifications of 0W-16 Oils

Brand & Product Name	Viscosity @ 40°C (cSt)	Viscosity @ 100°C (cSt)	HTHS (cP)	Pour Point (°C)	Flash Point (°C)
Motul 8100 ECO-lite 0W-16	38.0	7.3	2.3	-45	230
Castrol EDGE 0W-16	39.0	7.4	2.3	-54	226
Liqui Moly Special Tec AA 0W-16	38.2	7.6	2.4	-51	230
Pennzoil Platinum 0W-16	35.6	7.1	2.3	-51	204
Valvoline Advanced Full Synthetic 0W-16	38.5	7.5	2.3	-45	220

Note: Values sourced from publicly available technical data sheets; slight variation may occur by batch.

​

---

Understanding Viscosity Range at 100°C

SAE viscosity grades define a range rather than a single value. For example:

• SAE 0W-16: ~6.1 to 8.2 cSt at 100°C
• SAE 0W-20: ~8.2 to 9.3 cSt at 100°C
• SAE 5W-30: ~9.3 to 12.5 cSt at 100°C

While thinner oils support better fuel economy, maintaining film strength and thermal stability is critical. Motul 8100 ECO-lite strikes this balance with a formulation that maintains viscosity integrity and wear protection under real-world load and temperature conditions.

​

---

Motul's Philosophy and Your Ownership Experience

At Motul, we pride ourselves on being a consumer-focused company. Our customers can speak directly with technical experts not chatbots or automated systems. We're here to guide and support your decision-making process with honest, informed insights.

And while you may not want to hear it yes, some of our technology is derived from motorsports. But not because it sounds good in marketing rather because racing provides an accelerated environment to develop innovations in shear resistance, oxidation control, and base oil resilience. These learnings are directly applied to our service-level products to improve durability and performance for everyday drivers like yourself.

We appreciate your time and attention to detail, and we’re happy to provide any further documentation or support you may need.
Sincerely,

Best regards
		Chris Yerkes Marketing Coordinator +1 (909) 625-1292 x208 [email protected] 5836 Corporate Avenue Suite 150 Cypress 90630 (CA)
Introducing the new Motul 300V
Motul USA Inc.

 

[Glenda W.]

Informative response!

 

[svenson]

Our customers can speak directly with technical experts not chatbots or automated systems

i wish we had to speak at least with motul chatbots or automated systems here in Europe.
speaking with motul customer care here in europe is just an illusion. last time i send an email
they respond 2 weeks later telling me to speak with the local representative ,which i couldnt ,and that
is why i send motul Europe the mail but its like chasing my tail.

0W-16? whats next? 0w-0? well supporters of these thin oils always claim that we used to question 5-30
when came out ,the times that 15-50 and 10-40 oils were used long time ago,but now every driver is what
he uses for his car. well,i trust motul for the reasons they claim,sure specs are not like old times
but they make good oils.

thanks for the motul c.yerkes email.if someone wants to head a question directly to a motul rep,you can sing up
to Rennlist - The Porsche Enthusiast Site.

 

[LordNilesStandish]

i wish we had to speak at least with motul chatbots or automated systems here in Europe.
speaking with motul customer care here in europe is just an illusion. last time i send an email
they respond 2 weeks later telling me to speak with the local representative ,which i couldnt ,and that
is why i send motul Europe the mail but its like chasing my tail.

0W-16? whats next? 0w-0? well supporters of these thin oils always claim that we used to question 5-30
when came out ,the times that 15-50 and 10-40 oils were used long time ago,but now every driver is what
he uses for his car. well,i trust motul for the reasons they claim,sure specs are not like old times
but they make good oils.

thanks for the motul c.yerkes email.if someone wants to head a question directly to a motul rep,you can sing up
to Rennlist - The Porsche Enthusiast Site.

They have moved on to 0W8 now.

 

[GI_GRIFF]

Motul 8100 ECO-lite is formulated using 100% synthetic base oils, including Group III+ or higher stocks.

In this particular post I put on Bitog it was an e-mail response I got from Motul customer support. Personally, I thought it was a really great response noting how busy and big they are. I have also decided to switch to a 0w-20, since sending the original question to Motul about 0w-16. This engine oil stuff has been cycling in by brain for a couple months now with many of you suggesting what your choices would be. As I, and many of you have pointed out, just go to Walmart and grab whatever oil on the shelf that meets your cars API and ILSAC ratings that costs the less and go with it. Your car won't know the difference, or care. Yes, I could do that, because it is a true statement, but I am a little bit nuts about this stuff. I am glad I found this website, I have learned there are other people like me that get "emotional kicks" from learning about and choosing a particular engine oil. I enjoy reading about this stuff, and the learning I gain from it, though I am "advanced age challenged" at this point.
The statement the Motul guy made about the 8100 ECO-lite oil above has me puzzled. They have 100% synthetic with Ester written all over their bottles. It doesn't say full synthetic, which I think may mean, (herein the USA) somewhere between a couple drops of Ester in a 55-gallon drum of group II to what Motul is saying here with the 100% synthetic statement. Anyhow, in that sentence it says "Group III+". Aren't group three oils formed and started from crude oil, making it impossible for Motul's oil to be 100% synthetic? Wouldn't Motul have to drop down a notch and say "full synthetic" like say Mobil 1, Pennzoil and the like, to actually be honest? Someone please straighten me out, again. LOL! I found this on Microsoft Co-Pilot. So the question is; is Co-Pilot wrong or is Motul lying or is it all a grey area and really doesn't matter.

Base oils from Groups III, IV, and V are considered "synthetic"1245. However, only base oils from Groups IV and V are truly 100% synthetic.

 

[Pterostylis]

last time i send an email
they respond 2 weeks later telling me to speak with the local representative

At least you got some kind of response. I contacted Nulon/Fuchs almost a month ago with a simple question and never even got a response.

 

[LordNilesStandish]

At least you got some kind of response. I contacted Nulon/Fuchs almost a month ago with a simple question and never even got a response.

That doesn't sound normal for those guys. Maybe something went wrong. Try again?

 

[edyvw]

In this particular post I put on Bitog it was an e-mail response I got from Motul customer support. Personally, I thought it was a really great response noting how busy and big they are. I have also decided to switch to a 0w-20, since sending the original question to Motul about 0w-16. This engine oil stuff has been cycling in by brain for a couple months now with many of you suggesting what your choices would be. As I, and many of you have pointed out, just go to Walmart and grab whatever oil on the shelf that meets your cars API and ILSAC ratings that costs the less and go with it. Your car won't know the difference, or care. Yes, I could do that, because it is a true statement, but I am a little bit nuts about this stuff. I am glad I found this website, I have learned there are other people like me that get "emotional kicks" from learning about and choosing a particular engine oil. I enjoy reading about this stuff, and the learning I gain from it, though I am "advanced age challenged" at this point.
The statement the Motul guy made about the 8100 ECO-lite oil above has me puzzled. They have 100% synthetic with Ester written all over their bottles. It doesn't say full synthetic, which I think may mean, (herein the USA) somewhere between a couple drops of Ester in a 55-gallon drum of group II to what Motul is saying here with the 100% synthetic statement. Anyhow, in that sentence it says "Group III+". Aren't group three oils formed and started from crude oil, making it impossible for Motul's oil to be 100% synthetic? Wouldn't Motul have to drop down a notch and say "full synthetic" like say Mobil 1, Pennzoil and the like, to actually be honest? Someone please straighten me out, again. LOL! I found this on Microsoft Co-Pilot. So the question is; is Co-Pilot wrong or is Motul lying or is it all a grey area and really doesn't matter.

Base oils from Groups III, IV, and V are considered "synthetic"1245. However, only base oils from Groups IV and V are truly 100% synthetic.

I know Chris. He is cool guy and will take his time for customers.
Take into consideration that more often than not, representatives must answer the way corporate instructs them.

 

[svenson]

Anyhow, in that sentence it says "Group III+". Aren't group three oils formed and started from crude oil, making it impossible for Motul's oil to be 100% synthetic? Wouldn't Motul have to drop down a notch and say "full synthetic" like say Mobil 1, Pennzoil and the like, to actually be honest? Someone please straighten me out, again. LOL! I found this on Microsoft Co-Pilot. So the question is; is Co-Pilot wrong or is Motul lying or is it all a grey area and really doesn't matter.

Base oils from Groups III, IV, and V are considered "synthetic"1245. However, only base oils from Groups IV and V are truly 100% synthetic.

the answer Co-Pilot gave you is 100% correct,there is nothing to add.
long time ago when castrol won a trial against mobil,about group 3 hydrocrack oils if the have the right to named full synthetic ,the blenders started writing what ever they want as a language outside the bottles.so full synthetic or 100% synthetic is a misleading language they can use everywhere in the world except germany.
if you really want to know the truth about an oil if its really synthetic then go and search it on a german online shop.if its truly full synthetic then it will be written on the label, if not then it wont.

 

[svenson]

At least you got some kind of response. I contacted Nulon/Fuchs almost a month ago with a simple question and never even got a response.

well its not a response really..on the opposite i had a good response from fuchs ,even if it came 2 weeks later.

 

[Glenda W.]

I PM’d @ROWEMotorOilUSA months ago. Crickets

 

[kschachn]

the answer Co-Pilot gave you is 100% correct,there is nothing to add.
long time ago when castrol won a trial against mobil,about group 3 hydrocrack oils if the have the right to named full synthetic ,the blenders started writing what ever they want as a language outside the bottles.so full synthetic or 100% synthetic is a misleading language they can use everywhere in the world except germany.
if you really want to know the truth about an oil if its really synthetic then go and search it on a german online shop.if its truly full synthetic then it will be written on the label, if not then it wont.

Ahh the old trial that never was. And Castrol won this trial you say? Ana they got the “right” to label that way? What a hoot.

May it never end.

 

[kschachn]

In this particular post I put on Bitog it was an e-mail response I got from Motul customer support. Personally, I thought it was a really great response noting how busy and big they are. I have also decided to switch to a 0w-20, since sending the original question to Motul about 0w-16. This engine oil stuff has been cycling in by brain for a couple months now with many of you suggesting what your choices would be. As I, and many of you have pointed out, just go to Walmart and grab whatever oil on the shelf that meets your cars API and ILSAC ratings that costs the less and go with it. Your car won't know the difference, or care. Yes, I could do that, because it is a true statement, but I am a little bit nuts about this stuff. I am glad I found this website, I have learned there are other people like me that get "emotional kicks" from learning about and choosing a particular engine oil. I enjoy reading about this stuff, and the learning I gain from it, though I am "advanced age challenged" at this point.
The statement the Motul guy made about the 8100 ECO-lite oil above has me puzzled. They have 100% synthetic with Ester written all over their bottles. It doesn't say full synthetic, which I think may mean, (herein the USA) somewhere between a couple drops of Ester in a 55-gallon drum of group II to what Motul is saying here with the 100% synthetic statement. Anyhow, in that sentence it says "Group III+". Aren't group three oils formed and started from crude oil, making it impossible for Motul's oil to be 100% synthetic? Wouldn't Motul have to drop down a notch and say "full synthetic" like say Mobil 1, Pennzoil and the like, to actually be honest? Someone please straighten me out, again. LOL! I found this on Microsoft Co-Pilot. So the question is; is Co-Pilot wrong or is Motul lying or is it all a grey area and really doesn't matter.

Base oils from Groups III, IV, and V are considered "synthetic"1245. However, only base oils from Groups IV and V are truly 100% synthetic.

How about you straighten yourself out? Why make us repeat the same thing yet again? Seems unfair, doesn’t it? It does to me at least.

I thought we already discussed this? Maybe not.

Someday, maybe. LOL!

 

[svenson]

Ahh the old trial that never was. And Castrol won this trial you say? Ana they got the “right” to label that way? What a hoot.

May it never end.

bot .mobil thing ,Ahh?

 

[Glenda W.]

“In a ruling released April 1999, the NAD addressed complaints filed by Mobil Oil Corp. regarding the truthfulness of Castrol North America Inc.’s claim that its Syntec® provides “superior engine protection” to all other motor oils, both synthetic and conventional, and that Syntec’s esters provide “unique molecular bonding.” Mobil charged that the advertisements inaccurately represented that the current formulation of Syntec is synthetic. The challenge was filed based on statements Castrol made in a series of television commercials, Web site publications, package labels, and brochures.

The NAD divided its decision to address three issues raised in the complaint. Is the reformulated Syntec synthetic motor oil? Has Castrol substantiated its superiority claims? Has Syntec been degraded?

Synthetic?
The NAD determined that the evidence presented by the advertiser constitutes a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec, as currently formulated, is a synthetic motor oil. NAD noted that Mobil markets hydroisomerized basestocks as synthetic in Europe and elsewhere. NAD noted that the action taken by the SAE to delete any reference to “synthetic” in its description of basestocks in section J354 and API’s consequent removal of any mention of “synthetic” in API1509 were decisions by the industry not to restrict use of the term “synthetic” to the definition now proffered by Mobil. Further, the SAE Automotive Lubricants Reference Book, an extensively peer-reviewed publication, states base oils made through the processes used to create Shell’s hydroisomerized basestock, severe cracking, and reforming processes may be marketed as “synthetic.”

 

[kschachn]

The NAD determined that the evidence presented by the advertiser constitutes a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec, as currently formulated, is a synthetic motor oil. NAD noted that Mobil markets hydroisomerized basestocks as synthetic in Europe and elsewhere. NAD noted that the action taken by the SAE to delete any reference to “synthetic” in its description of basestocks in section J354 and API’s consequent removal of any mention of “synthetic” in API1509 were decisions by the industry not to restrict use of the term “synthetic” to the definition now proffered by Mobil. Further, the SAE Automotive Lubricants Reference Book, an extensively peer-reviewed publication, states base oils made through the processes used to create Shell’s hydroisomerized basestock, severe cracking, and reforming processes may be marketed as “synthetic.”

This part is one of the most important. We keep seeing posts about how "in Europe" synthetic means a Group IV or V base, but in reality it was already being sold that way in nearly all of Europe prior to in the US. The United States was a bit late to that. Only Germany has the marketing rule (whatever it actually is), not "Europe".

Besides the fact that these base stocks are indeed synthesized. API Annex E doesn't regard method of manufacture nor composition, only performance for Groups I, II and III. People keep seeing some sort of nefarious reasoning behind this but in reality it comes down to material characteristics, not somebody's offhand notion of what a synthesized material is or is not.

 

[GI_GRIFF]

I obviously have too much time on my hands, I have been studying the words synthesized and the word synthetic on Copilot and the Merriam Webster Dictionary. The "natural product" is crude oil, dinosaur rot, pumped out of the ground. From what I can tell, maybe all engine oils that start from crude oil are technically synthetic blend. I think adding a single drop of a man-made substance to that crude oil would make it "synthetic blend", not 100% natural in its natural original form. So, imo, all engine crankcase lubricants, that started from crude oil, would have to be considered a synthetic blend. There may be 100% synthetics out there, but they would need to change their labeling to "lubricants", not oil. They would have to call it 100% synthetic engine crankcase lubricant, not oil. There is no such thing as 100% synthetic engine oil, as someone here pointed out to me earlier. Basically, all marketed engine oils are a synthetic blend. There is nobody I am aware of pouring straight natural, un-touched crude oil in their engine for lubrication. Add a drop of a man-made substance to that batch of crude oil, it is a synthetic blend, whether it is used for engine oil base stock, or something else. As I said to start, I must have too much time on my hands, and also, I started this by questioning Motul's label claim. They are a synthetic blend, unless they didn't start as a crude oil, I don't know. All I had to do is look up word definitions on Copilot and Merriam Webster. All engine oils are synthetic blends, unless they didn't start as crude oil, then it wouldn't be considered an oil, it would be considered a lubricant. This whole mess reminds me back when a famous man said, "it depends on what the definition of the word, is, is." LOL!