Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related?

Originally Posted by JosephA
Quote
I need some further clarification here.

Are you saying the lifter body rotated/twisted? Because the body is a single piece, so the only way that is happening is if the (plastic) guide isn't keeping it straight, and that problem wouldn't be MDS-specific, since the same retaining unit/guide is used for both MDS and non-MDS lifters.


Yes, the lifter is twisted. Look at the image I posted earlier and you will notice the lock pin is not centered with the hole, and the bottom roller is not quite in line with the top half of the lifter.



The body should be one solid piece, without a machining problem, it should be impossible for the lifter to become out of alignment with itself. Your picture shows that the internals have shifted/twisted, which I noted, but unless that's a two-piece body...?

If it is indeed a one-piece body, like the diagrams I have posted show, and every conventional roller lifter I've ever handled, then the top being out of alignment with the wheel can only be due to machining/manufacturing error. Now, the body being twisted isn't a requirement for it to twist in the bore and run off-centre/on an angle, that just requires wear or failure of the plastic guide mechanism.

Ford used dog-bone style retainers, which were metal, and tended to work quite well. I believe GM did the same on the SBC, not sure what they use on the LSx engines off the top of my head. Nylon for something as important as lifter rotation mitigation strikes me as a poor choice.
 
Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by dave1251
With the history of the HEMI failure going back pre MDS with the same type of failure it's not MDS.


Prior to 2007'ish, there were no lifter/camshaft failures with the hemi; this didn't start until the introduction of the MDS. Prior to 2007, the biggest problem they had with the earlier Hemi designs were dropping valve seats, which seemed to be predominately happening on the Chrysler 300's.

Joe


MDS debuted in 2005 on the cars, FYI. Grand Cherokee and the trucks got it in 2006. Given that I provided links to two non-MDS engines (the 6.1L) that had the same failure, I don't think we can conclude the problem is married to MDS. MDS is however present on the vast, VAST majority of HEMI engines on the road, so of those impacted by this issue, the odds of them also having MDS is extremely high.

If you want to find examples of non-MDS cars with lifter failures, just look up ones with manual transmissions. Here's an entire thread about 2011/2012 Challenger 6spd cars, many of which were having their lifters replaced:
https://www.challengerforumz.com/threads/r-t-6-speed-lifter-noises.86618/

If you want a few other examples:
- 2009 Challenger R/T 6spd lifter failure
- 2012 Challenger SRT 392 6spd lifter failure
- On the 2nd page, 2014 SRT 392 6spd having lifters replaced

Plenty of results on the Challenger boards.
 
Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by burla
How was the cam lob Joseph? Sorry if you mentioned it already, I didn't catch all of that info.


I will yank the cam out this weekend. But I was able to view the camshaft lobe for #8 and it was damaged. Thankfully I got the problem just in time and told the wife not to drive it anymore just as soon as it lost power and started knocking. So I used an 8mm flex-scope and viewed the cam from the lifter bore, and it's damaged; the same with the MDS bores on cylinders 4 and 6. When I remove the cam this weekend, I'll be sure to post photo's

Joe


thanks man
 
Wow. This is incredible. I remember everyone back in the day ragging on Chevy for their soft cam lobes in their V8s. You would think by now this would not be an issue, on ANY vehicle. And all this just to save .001MPG over the life of a vehicle. Madness.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by dave1251
With the history of the HEMI failure going back pre MDS with the same type of failure it's not MDS.


Prior to 2007'ish, there were no lifter/camshaft failures with the hemi; this didn't start until the introduction of the MDS. Prior to 2007, the biggest problem they had with the earlier Hemi designs were dropping valve seats, which seemed to be predominately happening on the Chrysler 300's.

Joe


MDS debuted in 2005 on the cars, FYI. Grand Cherokee and the trucks got it in 2006. Given that I provided links to two non-MDS engines (the 6.1L) that had the same failure, I don't think we can conclude the problem is married to MDS. MDS is however present on the vast, VAST majority of HEMI engines on the road, so of those impacted by this issue, the odds of them also having MDS is extremely high.

If you want to find examples of non-MDS cars with lifter failures, just look up ones with manual transmissions. Here's an entire thread about 2011/2012 Challenger 6spd cars, many of which were having their lifters replaced:
https://www.challengerforumz.com/threads/r-t-6-speed-lifter-noises.86618/

If you want a few other examples:
- 2009 Challenger R/T 6spd lifter failure
- 2012 Challenger SRT 392 6spd lifter failure
- On the 2nd page, 2014 SRT 392 6spd having lifters replaced

Plenty of results on the Challenger boards.



Indeed and there has been how many million Hemi engines produced? It's very rare and it's not limited to MDS. Now this isn't comforting to ones who own a granaded engine but it's rare and in mass production it's a risk at same time it's a small risk.
 
Quote
The body should be one solid piece, without a machining problem, it should be impossible for the lifter to become out of alignment with itself. Your picture shows that the internals have shifted/twisted, which I noted, but unless that's a two-piece body...?

If it is indeed a one-piece body, like the diagrams I have posted show, and every conventional roller lifter I've ever handled, then the top being out of alignment with the wheel can only be due to machining/manufacturing error. Now, the body being twisted isn't a requirement for it to twist in the bore and run off-centre/on an angle, that just requires wear or failure of the plastic guide mechanism.

Ford used dog-bone style retainers, which were metal, and tended to work quite well. I believe GM did the same on the SBC, not sure what they use on the LSx engines off the top of my head. Nylon for something as important as lifter rotation mitigation strikes me as a poor choice.


My apologies for not explaining my understanding better than how I've presented it. LOL

Yes, the internal mechanisms of the MDS lifter I believe have rotated off center. I cannot give you exact degrees of rotation from centrism, but you can clearly see the internals off center just but looking at the internal lock-pin. You can also look at the roller in relation to the upper half of the lifter, which shows the roller is not perpendicular to the top of the lifter.

And the fact that the lock-pin is off centered, a hole is perpetually exposed, thereby contributing to wasted oil volume and pressure to that particular lifter, and potentially robbing the rest of the valve train of needed oil, especially considering the Hemi has a low volume output of oil pressure at idle speeds. Thus, the low volume of the oil pump and idle, combined with wasted volume on a failed MDS lifter stuck in unlock mode, only contribute further to the problems of valve train degradation.

Joe
 
Quote
Indeed and there has been how many million Hemi engines produced? It's very rare and it's not limited to MDS. Now this isn't comforting to ones who own a granaded engine but it's rare and in mass production it's a risk at same time it's a small risk.


I strongly disagree sir. This is by no means a "rare problem". Far from it. My friends Dodge Ram 2011 Hemi is doing this, and I will be repairing his after my wifes truck. I've spoken to the local mechanic in my town and he does 1 to 2 of these per week; some from warranty repair, others out of pocket. There are also dozens and dozens of YouTube video's of other Hemi owners suffering the same problem, with some less than 40,000 miles. Not to mention to thousands of complaints I've read from different complaint sites, mostly reporting on hemi lifter failure and camshaft damage.

You should be willing to admit that any type of lifter failure at such low mileage is bad....bad....bad. Because these kinds of failures are unheard of. So can you justify a $36,000 dollar truck with the potentiality of a $7,000 dollar repair with less than $100,000 miles, give or take? And to brush it off as "non-comforting" to the unlucky ones, as though it doesn't matter, is preposterous to say the least. If the problem is so rare as you suggest, then why is Chrysler so unwilling to help with the problem? Tell you another story. The warranty department refused to repair our truck when it was under warranty, and instead told the dealership that they were responsible for the repair since they were servicing our truck with the wrong oil....being 5W-30 non-synthetic. The dealership turned around and lied, claiming it merely needed a $988 dollar tuneup. That's right...a tuneup. Somehow they were able to baby the problem and get it to exceed the warranty, and that's when the problem not only came back, but grew much worse. I suspect the dealership merely replaced the bad lifter that knocked before, and that bought them another 4,000 miles at which time the warranty expired.

No sir, this is not rare at all. Hundreds, if not thousands of people are repairing their dodge vehicles, and dumping them, trying to get back any amount of dollar they've wasted on such poor quality vehicles.

All of my years as a mechanic, and not once have I've seen a GM motor with destroyed lifters; neither a Toyota, nor even a Ford, and all with less than 100K miles.

As for the non-hemi failures, I have not seen any so far. And if this is the case (which my evidence does not agree with your supposition), then there is definitely a design flaw if lifters can be destroyed even without MDS.

Besides, I know your statement is not only illogical, but irrational as well. Why? Because GM is currently having the exact same problems on their Z71's with the AFM (same as MDS) trucks. Lifter failures and camshaft destruction.

Coincidence? Or the same level of "bad luck" to the rare victims of these atrocities?

Besides, since the problem is supposedly so rare, then heck, Chrysler shouldn't have a single problem paying to help out these rare victims. But nope...it's on the consumer....thousands of them. And there should be ZERO lifter failures and ZERO camshaft destruction, short of outright neglect.

Joe
 
Quote
MDS debuted in 2005 on the cars, FYI. Grand Cherokee and the trucks got it in 2006. Given that I provided links to two non-MDS engines (the 6.1L) that had the same failure, I don't think we can conclude the problem is married to MDS. MDS is however present on the vast, VAST majority of HEMI engines on the road, so of those impacted by this issue, the odds of them also having MDS is extremely high.

If you want to find examples of non-MDS cars with lifter failures, just look up ones with manual transmissions. Here's an entire thread about 2011/2012 Challenger 6spd cars, many of which were having their lifters replaced:
https://www.challengerforumz.com/threads/r-t-6-speed-lifter-noises.86618/

If you want a few other examples:
- 2009 Challenger R/T 6spd lifter failure
- 2012 Challenger SRT 392 6spd lifter failure
- On the 2nd page, 2014 SRT 392 6spd having lifters replaced

Plenty of results on the Challenger boards.


I can only base my conclusion on what I've seen, and not from website sources. I'm not suggesting the sources you've provided were fabricated. But the folks I have spoken to directly have not heard of these failures apart from MDS (or AFM) systems.

My own vehicle, along with others whom I am helping, are all MDS in the RAM trucks. And considering the non-MDS reports you've provided are not plenteous, I'd have to say that something else was likely the cause. Think about it. Anyone owning a 392 is bound to dog the living crap out of their vehicles. So it is possible that the way they treat their vehicle, combined to a design flaw, led to their failure.

But again, using mere logic. GM is having the same issue as Chrysler with their Z71's AFM system (same as MDS). Logic suggests that any attempts to design a cylinder shutdown technology involving lifter collapse/expansion is a complete failure.

What then do you say is the cause? Just bad luck?

I've spoken to Johnson (company designing the new lifters), and he stated to me as well that the problem is MDS oil related. I've spoken to several Level 1 and 2 mechanics, some with Ford and some with Chrysler, and both of told me that these failures are primarily on MDS vehicles. I've also spoken to Comp-Cam and they too stated this was limited to MDS lifters. Finally, I've asked them outright that if I dump the MDS system, and uses newly designed solid lifters with heavier rollers, and a upgraded camshaft, would this solve the problem and prevent future failures. And his answer was a stern, "YES". And I have to agree with him.

There is insufficient date and evidence (as well as customer complaints on complaint sites) suggesting that non-MDS systems are having the exact same problems. Maybe they are, but I'm not quite sold, short of neglect. It's as though some people are trying to pass this off as some sort of fluke and that none of us should worry about it. Well, I don't know about you, but all be [censored] if I'm going to spend $36,000 dollars on a potential problem with the draw of the straw. LOL I"d rather buy something more reliable, and from a automotive corporation that actually honors their warranty, i.e. Toyota. My best friends works in Atlanta, GA at a Toyota dealership, and they are replacing engines at no cost to the customer if they start burning oil, despite the fact that in nearly all of these cases, the customer was at fault for not keeping up with routine oil changes. I've yet to see Chrysler (or even GM) honor their warranty's. [censored], I've been screwed twice before from Chrysler. A blown head gasket leaking oil on a 2.4 crappy engine from a 1997 Strattus with less than 58,000 miles, and a water pump which I paid to replace on a crappy 2.7 Liter failure. Yet after the $800 dollar replacement, it failed again and destroyed the engine having damaged the timing chain, and blew every coolant gasket and seal. I mean, it was a show man. Every gasket and seal leaked steam and engine coolant. And that car (2002 Dodge Stratus R/T) only has 118,000 miles with brand new tires.

Joe
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by JosephA
Quote
The body should be one solid piece, without a machining problem, it should be impossible for the lifter to become out of alignment with itself. Your picture shows that the internals have shifted/twisted, which I noted, but unless that's a two-piece body...?

If it is indeed a one-piece body, like the diagrams I have posted show, and every conventional roller lifter I've ever handled, then the top being out of alignment with the wheel can only be due to machining/manufacturing error. Now, the body being twisted isn't a requirement for it to twist in the bore and run off-centre/on an angle, that just requires wear or failure of the plastic guide mechanism.

Ford used dog-bone style retainers, which were metal, and tended to work quite well. I believe GM did the same on the SBC, not sure what they use on the LSx engines off the top of my head. Nylon for something as important as lifter rotation mitigation strikes me as a poor choice.


My apologies for not explaining my understanding better than how I've presented it. LOL

Yes, the internal mechanisms of the MDS lifter I believe have rotated off center. I cannot give you exact degrees of rotation from centrism, but you can clearly see the internals off center just but looking at the internal lock-pin. You can also look at the roller in relation to the upper half of the lifter, which shows the roller is not perpendicular to the top of the lifter.

And the fact that the lock-pin is off centered, a hole is perpetually exposed, thereby contributing to wasted oil volume and pressure to that particular lifter, and potentially robbing the rest of the valve train of needed oil, especially considering the Hemi has a low volume output of oil pressure at idle speeds. Thus, the low volume of the oil pump and idle, combined with wasted volume on a failed MDS lifter stuck in unlock mode, only contribute further to the problems of valve train degradation.

Joe


OK, but if the body is a one-piece design, which I believe it is, regardless of the internals rotating, which I agree, is quite visible, that would have no effect on the alignment between the roller and the flats for the guide which, if they are not aligned, points to a machining error during production. Again, assuming this is indeed a one-piece body. If the body is a two-piece unit and can be separated, then I could see rotation being possible. Follow?

If the flats for the guide are not in-line with the roller, and this is indeed a one piece body, then you may have stumbled upon something very important here.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JosephA
Quote
The body should be one solid piece, without a machining problem, it should be impossible for the lifter to become out of alignment with itself. Your picture shows that the internals have shifted/twisted, which I noted, but unless that's a two-piece body...?

If it is indeed a one-piece body, like the diagrams I have posted show, and every conventional roller lifter I've ever handled, then the top being out of alignment with the wheel can only be due to machining/manufacturing error. Now, the body being twisted isn't a requirement for it to twist in the bore and run off-centre/on an angle, that just requires wear or failure of the plastic guide mechanism.

Ford used dog-bone style retainers, which were metal, and tended to work quite well. I believe GM did the same on the SBC, not sure what they use on the LSx engines off the top of my head. Nylon for something as important as lifter rotation mitigation strikes me as a poor choice.


My apologies for not explaining my understanding better than how I've presented it. LOL

Yes, the internal mechanisms of the MDS lifter I believe have rotated off center. I cannot give you exact degrees of rotation from centrism, but you can clearly see the internals off center just but looking at the internal lock-pin. You can also look at the roller in relation to the upper half of the lifter, which shows the roller is not perpendicular to the top of the lifter.

And the fact that the lock-pin is off centered, a hole is perpetually exposed, thereby contributing to wasted oil volume and pressure to that particular lifter, and potentially robbing the rest of the valve train of needed oil, especially considering the Hemi has a low volume output of oil pressure at idle speeds. Thus, the low volume of the oil pump and idle, combined with wasted volume on a failed MDS lifter stuck in unlock mode, only contribute further to the problems of valve train degradation.

Joe


OK, but if the body is a one-piece design, which I believe it is, regardless of the internals rotating, which I agree, is quite visible, that would have no effect on the alignment between the roller and the flats for the guide which, if they are not aligned, points to a machining error during production. Again, assuming this is indeed a one-piece body. If the body is a two-piece unit and can be separated, then I could see rotation being possible. Follow?

If the flats for the guide are not in-line with the roller, and this is indeed a one piece body, then you may have stumbled upon something very important here.


It might perhaps be a machining error. But I believe the rollers are kept stationary from an internal keeper. A Dodge Mechanic told me that the internal keepers are made of plastic I think. And when the plastic breaks, the roller (lower half of the lifter) can rotate. And that's what I think happened to mine. I will likely try to find a way to tear one of the MDS lifters down out of morbid curiosity.

Joe
 
Originally Posted by JosephA
Quote
Indeed and there has been how many million Hemi engines produced? It's very rare and it's not limited to MDS. Now this isn't comforting to ones who own a granaded engine but it's rare and in mass production it's a risk at same time it's a small risk.


I strongly disagree sir. This is by no means a "rare problem". Far from it. My friends Dodge Ram 2011 Hemi is doing this, and I will be repairing his after my wifes truck. I've spoken to the local mechanic in my town and he does 1 to 2 of these per week; some from warranty repair, others out of pocket. There are also dozens and dozens of YouTube video's of other Hemi owners suffering the same problem, with some less than 40,000 miles. Not to mention to thousands of complaints I've read from different complaint sites, mostly reporting on hemi lifter failure and camshaft damage.

You should be willing to admit that any type of lifter failure at such low mileage is bad....bad....bad. Because these kinds of failures are unheard of. So can you justify a $36,000 dollar truck with the potentiality of a $7,000 dollar repair with less than $100,000 miles, give or take? And to brush it off as "non-comforting" to the unlucky ones, as though it doesn't matter, is preposterous to say the least. If the problem is so rare as you suggest, then why is Chrysler so unwilling to help with the problem? Tell you another story. The warranty department refused to repair our truck when it was under warranty, and instead told the dealership that they were responsible for the repair since they were servicing our truck with the wrong oil....being 5W-30 non-synthetic. The dealership turned around and lied, claiming it merely needed a $988 dollar tuneup. That's right...a tuneup. Somehow they were able to baby the problem and get it to exceed the warranty, and that's when the problem not only came back, but grew much worse. I suspect the dealership merely replaced the bad lifter that knocked before, and that bought them another 4,000 miles at which time the warranty expired.

No sir, this is not rare at all. Hundreds, if not thousands of people are repairing their dodge vehicles, and dumping them, trying to get back any amount of dollar they've wasted on such poor quality vehicles.

All of my years as a mechanic, and not once have I've seen a GM motor with destroyed lifters; neither a Toyota, nor even a Ford, and all with less than 100K miles.

As for the non-hemi failures, I have not seen any so far. And if this is the case (which my evidence does not agree with your supposition), then there is definitely a design flaw if lifters can be destroyed even without MDS.

Besides, I know your statement is not only illogical, but irrational as well. Why? Because GM is currently having the exact same problems on their Z71's with the AFM (same as MDS) trucks. Lifter failures and camshaft destruction.

Coincidence? Or the same level of "bad luck" to the rare victims of these atrocities?

Besides, since the problem is supposedly so rare, then heck, Chrysler shouldn't have a single problem paying to help out these rare victims. But nope...it's on the consumer....thousands of them. And there should be ZERO lifter failures and ZERO camshaft destruction, short of outright neglect.

Joe


According to a good friend of mine at the local dealer, it is not a common problem given the volume of engines out there. They do them periodically, and under warranty if applicable, but it isn't something done regularly. They've never had to do them on an SRT, despite me being able to find numerous cases of it being done on MDS and non-MDS SRT's on the web. So we do need to keep this in perspective. While it's infuriating that it has gone on this long without resolve, statistically, the rate of occurrence isn't as high as it seems I'm sure.

Regarding GM: As noted, they've had their own rash of lifter failures for their AFM cylinder deactivation. It's such a problem child, often causing oil consumption even when it works properly, that there are a ton of programmers and tunes out there to disable it. But, unlike with Dodge, GM isn't having lifter failures on non-AFM engines, whilst there's plenty of evidence, already provided, that shows that the HEMI issues are not married to MDS. Also, it is my understanding based on what I've read, that with the GM issue, the lifters going bad usually don't fail in the manner we are seeing here. There are a few GM techs on here that I'm sure can speak to that.
 
Originally Posted by JosephA

It might perhaps be a machining error. But I believe the rollers are kept stationary from an internal keeper. A Dodge Mechanic told me that the internal keepers are made of plastic I think. And when the plastic breaks, the roller (lower half of the lifter) can rotate. And that's what I think happened to mine. I will likely try to find a way to tear one of the MDS lifters down out of morbid curiosity.

Joe


If it is a one-piece body, which should be very easy for you to check, then the roller is pinned through the lower part of the body and there is absolutely no way for it to rotate out of alignment with the guild flats. You can see the internals in the two pics I posted (which also show a one-piece body) which show how the unit functions, essentially collapsing into itself when the pin is retracted, while the internal spring keeps pressure on cylinder that engages the pushrod, while not allowing the valve to actuate.

I think your Dodge mechanic friend is talking about the same piece of plastic I'm talking about, which isn't internal to the lifter. It's the plastic guide that bolts over the tops of the lifters and engages the flats to keep the lifters straight. If that unit breaks, the lifters are free to go out of alignment with the lobes, or even rotate around. You can see that unit in one of my earlier pictures.
 
Originally Posted by JosephA

I can only base my conclusion on what I've seen, and not from website sources. I'm not suggesting the sources you've provided were fabricated. But the folks I have spoken to directly have not heard of these failures apart from MDS (or AFM) systems.

My own vehicle, along with others whom I am helping, are all MDS in the RAM trucks. And considering the non-MDS reports you've provided are not plenteous, I'd have to say that something else was likely the cause. Think about it. Anyone owning a 392 is bound to dog the living crap out of their vehicles. So it is possible that the way they treat their vehicle, combined to a design flaw, led to their failure.

But again, using mere logic. GM is having the same issue as Chrysler with their Z71's AFM system (same as MDS). Logic suggests that any attempts to design a cylinder shutdown technology involving lifter collapse/expansion is a complete failure.

What then do you say is the cause? Just bad luck?

Joe


You can't only base it on what you've seen, because that results in you just sitting in your own echo chamber and it remains unrepresentative of the overall scope. Your examples are speaking to exactly what I've stated and that is that the vast, VAST majority of HEMI engines on the road are going to have MDS. The exceptions are the 6.1L and those backed by a manual transmission. Thus, the odds are that if you come across a HEMI with the issue, it is going to have MDS. Not because the MDS engines are necessarily more prone to it, but simply because they make up the majority of the engines, follow?

Originally I didn't think the issue impacted the SRT engines at all. My local dealer had NEVER done lifters on an SRT, MDS or non. I then discovered that there were indeed numerous cases on the Internet, many of which I've linked here, indicating that the issue isn't isolated to the 5.7L and 6.4L truck engines as I originally thought. I was then forced to re-evaluate my position based on that data. Discovering that the issue was also not exclusive to the MDS engines caused a further revision to my thought process. Our theories must evolve as data is added that invalidates them, either in full or in part. We are at one of those junctures now where the non-MDS data needs to be factored into the theory you are working with.

Yes, I think we need to acknowledge GM's issues as well, but as far as I'm aware, the primary mode of failure does not resemble what we are seeing here. The main issue is high oil consumption and noise, not self-destructing lifters wiping out cams. Hopefully we can get a few of the GM techs on here to chime-in on this, as I noted in my previous post.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JosephA

I can only base my conclusion on what I've seen, and not from website sources. I'm not suggesting the sources you've provided were fabricated. But the folks I have spoken to directly have not heard of these failures apart from MDS (or AFM) systems.

My own vehicle, along with others whom I am helping, are all MDS in the RAM trucks. And considering the non-MDS reports you've provided are not plenteous, I'd have to say that something else was likely the cause. Think about it. Anyone owning a 392 is bound to dog the living crap out of their vehicles. So it is possible that the way they treat their vehicle, combined to a design flaw, led to their failure.

But again, using mere logic. GM is having the same issue as Chrysler with their Z71's AFM system (same as MDS). Logic suggests that any attempts to design a cylinder shutdown technology involving lifter collapse/expansion is a complete failure.

What then do you say is the cause? Just bad luck?

Joe


You can't only base it on what you've seen, because that results in you just sitting in your own echo chamber and it remains unrepresentative of the overall scope. Your examples are speaking to exactly what I've stated and that is that the vast, VAST majority of HEMI engines on the road are going to have MDS. The exceptions are the 6.1L and those backed by a manual transmission. Thus, the odds are that if you come across a HEMI with the issue, it is going to have MDS. Not because the MDS engines are necessarily more prone to it, but simply because they make up the majority of the engines, follow?

Originally I didn't think the issue impacted the SRT engines at all. My local dealer had NEVER done lifters on an SRT, MDS or non. I then discovered that there were indeed numerous cases on the Internet, many of which I've linked here, indicating that the issue isn't isolated to the 5.7L and 6.4L truck engines as I originally thought. I was then forced to re-evaluate my position based on that data. Discovering that the issue was also not exclusive to the MDS engines caused a further revision to my thought process. Our theories must evolve as data is added that invalidates them, either in full or in part. We are at one of those junctures now where the non-MDS data needs to be factored into the theory you are working with.

Yes, I think we need to acknowledge GM's issues as well, but as far as I'm aware, the primary mode of failure does not resemble what we are seeing here. The main issue is high oil consumption and noise, not self-destructing lifters wiping out cams. Hopefully we can get a few of the GM techs on here to chime-in on this, as I noted in my previous post.


We can add the fact that currently Mopar lifters are on back order. There are a few online companies claiming they have them in stock. Hmmmm? Sort of makes you wonder if this was all planned. LOL

But the fact that mopar lifters are currently on a 2 to 3 months backlog tells me that this is not a rare issue; otherwise their stock would remain surplus.

As for GM DOD (Displacement on Demand), I just spoke to a gentlemen on YouTube who has a Chevy Tahoe with the AFM (same as MDS), and his engine knocked due to failed collapsable/expandable lifters. Luckily his was caught early enough that it did not wipe out his camshaft lobe. But a few of his lifters were severely damaged.

This issue is not rare. And I spent nearly an hour trying to find information on non-MDS failures. On YouTube, I found zero...notta....zilch. I did see an article or two talking about a few 6 liter problems, but none of them specifically mentioned lifter/camshaft failure. One video on youtube is of a gentlemen's who 6 liter started misfiring and bucking, which does resemble the typical and common 5.7 lifter problem, but there was no followup to his video and he never explained his final diagnosis from the dealership.

So all in all, there just isn't enough information about the 6 liter lifter failure. I did however find a video of a Dodge mechanic who showed 3 camshafts destroyed, all Dodge Ram Hemi's. 2 of them were MDS RAMS, while 1 was non-MDS.

So the ratio seems to point to multiple defects leading to such an early failure. However, as an experienced Mechanic (I'm not sure if you are one or not), and based on my observations, the 2 destroyed MDS lifters were stuck open/unlocked, and the poppet hole which is supposed to be sealed during operation, allowed too much oil into those lifters which also kept them somewhat expanded. This likely led to oil starvation of the cylinder #8 lifters, thus explaining why it was so dry. Unless you have a better reason as to why #8 lifter (intake) was dry. And there seems to be a high volume of #8 failures.

Another question for you to ponder is this. Why is it that only intake lifters are failing? Why aren't any of the exhaust valve lifters being destroyed? I could be wrong, but so far, all of the information I've gathered (to include my own personal experience) seems to show only intake lifter failure, and those are mostly MDS lifters.

The history of DOD goes back to the early 1900's when a mechanical system was introduced to shutdown cylinders. It failed due to poor mechanical design and technology. Cadillac tried this and also suffered failures. And here we are with both Chrysler and GM utilizing DOD systems and again struck with failure. And yet Chrysler and GM have both refused to issue a TSB to resolve the issue. Why? Only [censored] knows why. Probably to make more money by sponsoring companies providing after market replacement parts so that neither GM, nor Chrysler could be held accountable by the stupid EPA for failing to produce vehicles that adhere to modern fuel standards. GM claims their DOD system provides a 16% percent savings in fuel costs. What a joke. I saw the same thing on the wifes RAM when we bought it. And yet even while in economy mode, we never saw anything better than 16mpg, and that's ever since the truck was brand new. [censored] my Suburban 5.7 Vortec with 255hp gets about 18mph on the Interstate and about 16 in the city. Sure less horse power, but still old technology with over 297,000 miles, and still getting better gas mileage and longevity than any modern V8 powered GM or Dodge.

Back order on Mopar lifter replacements logically means a [censored] of a lot of lifters are taking a dump....

I just read my post, and I saw a lot of censorship. Are we in Russia now? It's not like I used any bad words. Don't tell me this fourm is controlled by the AI (Artificial Intelligence) of so-called, "Hate speech".

Joe
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JosephA

It might perhaps be a machining error. But I believe the rollers are kept stationary from an internal keeper. A Dodge Mechanic told me that the internal keepers are made of plastic I think. And when the plastic breaks, the roller (lower half of the lifter) can rotate. And that's what I think happened to mine. I will likely try to find a way to tear one of the MDS lifters down out of morbid curiosity.

Joe


If it is a one-piece body, which should be very easy for you to check, then the roller is pinned through the lower part of the body and there is absolutely no way for it to rotate out of alignment with the guild flats. You can see the internals in the two pics I posted (which also show a one-piece body) which show how the unit functions, essentially collapsing into itself when the pin is retracted, while the internal spring keeps pressure on cylinder that engages the pushrod, while not allowing the valve to actuate.

I think your Dodge mechanic friend is talking about the same piece of plastic I'm talking about, which isn't internal to the lifter. It's the plastic guide that bolts over the tops of the lifters and engages the flats to keep the lifters straight. If that unit breaks, the lifters are free to go out of alignment with the lobes, or even rotate around. You can see that unit in one of my earlier pictures.


Okay on the plastic keepers on top of the lifters. I noted that too when I removed my lifters, and I was stunned after seeing plastic keepers holding the lifters in place. Chrysler made a huge mistake with that.

Now about the liters, it is very clear to me how the MDS lifters work. The lower half of the lifter is what bobs up and down when the pin is unlocked. The lower end of the lifter is held in place by a flat piston of some kind. But from the inward side, you can see how the lower half of the lifter slides into its own body, while the mid section to the top of the lifters is sustained in a frozen no moving position. Logically, if the lower end of the lifter is able to move up and down, this means something internal has to keep its proper vertical orientation. That "something" might be failing, which would also explain why the lock pin is off center. Keep in mind that the lock pin is what allows the lifter to collapse or expand.

As with GM displacement on demand systems, oil pressure is used to push in the lock pin and allow the lifter to collapse in on itself. Likewise, oil pressure is used to expand the lifter until it reaches maximum extension and the locking pin is flushed in place of its hole, and oil pressure returns to normal lubrication. Think really clear here. If the hole remains open during lifter expansion and operation, what do you believe will result from that? Logically, soundly, and mechanically, oil volume and pressure will be lost. It's really not that difficult. Run 4 smaller water hoses from a single larger hose, the 4 smaller water hoses will output and carry the same volume of water, as long as they all share the same level of flow-resistance. Now pop one of the 4 water hoses, and the volume for the leaking hose will increase, while the volume in the other 3 water hoses will be decreased. This is exactly what is going on with the failed MDS lifters. Therefore, logically, and without any trace of doubt, this would mean a reduction of oil volume to the other lifters on the same valve train. And since #8 is all the way in the back, this explains why #8 doesn't seem to get enough oil; not just with my engine, but others as well that have suffered #8 intake lifter failure.

There's a reason why my career as an excellent F-16 Fighter Jet mechanic came with many awards. My troubleshooting skills are quite excellent..not to pat myself on the back. LOL But the Air Force inspires us to use our minds, schematics, flowcharts, and much more to understand why failures happens. But so far, only one person on here has offered a viable reason for the lifter failures. But there hasn't been any logical evidence to back up his theory. While I may not have laboratory evidence, seems quite logical to me based on science alone (physics 101).

Joe
 
Originally Posted by JosephA
Quote
Indeed and there has been how many million Hemi engines produced? It's very rare and it's not limited to MDS. Now this isn't comforting to ones who own a granaded engine but it's rare and in mass production it's a risk at same time it's a small risk.


I strongly disagree sir. This is by no means a "rare problem". Far from it. My friends Dodge Ram 2011 Hemi is doing this, and I will be repairing his after my wifes truck. I've spoken to the local mechanic in my town and he does 1 to 2 of these per week; some from warranty repair, others out of pocket. There are also dozens and dozens of YouTube video's of other Hemi owners suffering the same problem, with some less than 40,000 miles. Not to mention to thousands of complaints I've read from different complaint sites, mostly reporting on hemi lifter failure and camshaft damage.

You should be willing to admit that any type of lifter failure at such low mileage is bad....bad....bad. Because these kinds of failures are unheard of. So can you justify a $36,000 dollar truck with the potentiality of a $7,000 dollar repair with less than $100,000 miles, give or take? And to brush it off as "non-comforting" to the unlucky ones, as though it doesn't matter, is preposterous to say the least. If the problem is so rare as you suggest, then why is Chrysler so unwilling to help with the problem? Tell you another story. The warranty department refused to repair our truck when it was under warranty, and instead told the dealership that they were responsible for the repair since they were servicing our truck with the wrong oil....being 5W-30 non-synthetic. The dealership turned around and lied, claiming it merely needed a $988 dollar tuneup. That's right...a tuneup. Somehow they were able to baby the problem and get it to exceed the warranty, and that's when the problem not only came back, but grew much worse. I suspect the dealership merely replaced the bad lifter that knocked before, and that bought them another 4,000 miles at which time the warranty expired.

No sir, this is not rare at all. Hundreds, if not thousands of people are repairing their dodge vehicles, and dumping them, trying to get back any amount of dollar they've wasted on such poor quality vehicles.

All of my years as a mechanic, and not once have I've seen a GM motor with destroyed lifters; neither a Toyota, nor even a Ford, and all with less than 100K miles.

As for the non-hemi failures, I have not seen any so far. And if this is the case (which my evidence does not agree with your supposition), then there is definitely a design flaw if lifters can be destroyed even without MDS.

Besides, I know your statement is not only illogical, but irrational as well. Why? Because GM is currently having the exact same problems on their Z71's with the AFM (same as MDS) trucks. Lifter failures and camshaft destruction.

Coincidence? Or the same level of "bad luck" to the rare victims of these atrocities?

Besides, since the problem is supposedly so rare, then heck, Chrysler shouldn't have a single problem paying to help out these rare victims. But nope...it's on the consumer....thousands of them. And there should be ZERO lifter failures and ZERO camshaft destruction, short of outright neglect.

Joe



Sorry the math does not bare in your favor it's a rare problem it's really in the very low single digits under 2% in total failures in the equivalent of 100K miles of useage you can disagree but the numbers don't favor your position. GM does not have widespread failures either. Individuals like yourself fall into the trap because you can find 2 dozen or so fellow owners with a similar situation out of millions there is a widespread problem. Sorry Bud it's just not the case and it's a shame you are unable to see the big picture even presented with facts such as the same failure predates your theory you can not accept this.
 
Here is a guy who did his homework and understands. I'd like to talk to this guy because he spoke to some really good techs.

Quote
i used to think "No MDS is a tried and trusted system" but since my failure 2 months ago, and research associated with it I have come to think that it is indeed an issue, not just for Chrysler but across each platform that uses a similar method of oil restriction/lifter deactivation.

Mine is a 126000 mile 2011 SRT8 Challenger that had a catastrophic failure on an MDS lifter, wiping out not only the lifter but the cam. Upon tear down (all done by myself) it was evident that the lifter/roller had experienced restricted oil flow leading to roller failure...scoring of roller and cam which wore away the hardened surfaces and destroyed both.

Upon inspection and tear down I started talking to local Dodge techs, as well as some online and even as far as discussing it with some builders at petty enterprises. From there I talked to a local shop who builds LS engines for the Chevy guys...and guess what....the GM DOD system...fails exactly the same way.

My conclusion: They will eventually fail, whether it is at 10K or 200K eventually something breaks down...whether the oil restriction....blockages...surface wear, who knows. I chose to eliminate it all together, no more solenoids, no more restrictors, eliminated it with a tuner, put in some non MDS lifters and heavy duty pushrods.

The dealer techs say that the cop cars fail from idling constantly...followed by the SRT cars...but much less on the 6.4s than 5.7 failures.

the concept is sound...but anytime you have rotation and metal on metal....limiting oil flow is not the answer.

that is my 2 cents, I am in the process of mounting my wiped cam and lifter on a plaque to remind me of this...for my office.

Luckly I was able to do all this work myself jsut having to pay for parts, I feel for the guys out there who woudl have to out of pocket this...or worse yet keep driving it until it gets enough trash it wipes out the engine all together.

PS: all oil changes pre-me were dealer at scheduled intervals, mine are all by me with Liquimoly 0W40 at slightly less mileage than scheduled, with one oil analysis per year.


Source: https://www.challengertalk.com/forums/f188/6-4l-mds-doomed-fail-eventually-658921/

His conclusions are the same as mine. Using oil to control lifter demand is a really stupid idea.

I've tried finding any lifter/camshaft related failures on any upgarded Hemi engine to a comp-cam and mopar "upgraded" lifters, and so far I haven't found a single failure.

So I will obviously be pressing on with the upgrade. I still have to remove the camshaft, but I'm having a heck of a time finding a harmonic balance removal tool for this engine; none of the parts stores carry it. I guess I'll have to order one online.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
LS1 Lifters and Oil Viscosity
2
Replies
21
Views
801
ZeeOSix
H
  • Locked
Active Fuel Management (AFM) heavier oil better for lifters?
Replies
2
Views
1K
hardheaded
Corneileous
Oil for 2018 Ram 1500 Hemi
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
4K
Corneileous
W
Oil Filter Change Interval Clarification/Input
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Wat_MPG
L
5.7 hemi oil discussion
Replies
9
Views
902
travis8352
Back
Top