Home

Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related?

Posted By: BullyT

Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 01:42 PM

I have a 2009 Dodge Ram with 5.7 litre Hemi and about 65,000 miles on it. Just had a problem with one of the roller hydraulic lifters--it collapsed causing a loud ticking/knocking sound and wear on a valve. Definitely not normal for the Hemi engine which is robust. Replacement involves removing the heads, etc. Expensive repair (Canadian trucks don't get the lifetime powertrain that US owners get). I may get goodwill warranty from Chrysler Canada--they're looking into it.

Dealer and Chrysler can't explain how or why the lifter would fail. In over 30 years of driving I've never had a lifter problem in any vehicle...many of them high mileage. I'm meticulous with my oil changes--I only use the 5w20 recommended weight (MDS engine) and always full synthetic. Most recently Castrol Edge. I've also used Mobil 1 and Pennzoil Platinum. Oil is changed before the oil life monitor comes on...I typically change at 5,000 miles.

I initially used the OEM Mopar filters which are very good, but access to the oil filter on these trucks is difficult especially trying to get a filter wrench on them. As a result on two or three oil changes I used Fram filters which have the easy-to-grip surface.

I'm not familiar with the full operation of roller hydraulic lifters and what role oil would play in longevity. That's my first question. The second question is, if this was your truck what oil would you run going forward? Other than this lifter issue, the truck has been great...very reliable and I plan to keep it a long time.

Appreciate any input. Thank you.
Posted By: NHHEMI

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 01:48 PM

Most any mechanical thing eventually will fail. Could just have been a defective lifter. Stinks that it happened though don't misunderstand me.

Do you know if it was one of the special MDS lifters or one of the regular ones?
Posted By: spasm3

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 01:49 PM

I would do a short 500mile oci after the work is done. No way some dirt did not get in the engine during repair. Afterwards, i'd continue with the synthetic. You may had just gotten the bad lifter off the assembly line. ( May not be an oil related failure).
Posted By: tig1

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 01:50 PM

Lifters fail regardless of miles. Rare, but it happens. The oil had no connection to the failure. If it was the oil then Hemi's all over the place would have this problem.
Posted By: BullyT

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 01:52 PM

I just know it's a Hemi with the MDS system. Dealer is sending worn/defective parts to Chrysler for inspection. Fully understand that mechanical things fail eventually, although this was premature.
Posted By: widman

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 01:53 PM

The only problems I've seen with those engines are where people have put 15W-40 in them.
Posted By: hounddog

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 01:59 PM

It just failed. Bet there is no wear on it. Wasn't oil related. You'd have more then one and it would show wear. You used same oil thousands use.
Posted By: sky7

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 02:38 PM

A little google search shows that this is common to the hemi's and they have a known lifter issue. When you ask for goodwill from the dealer be nice, but bring in a huge stack of similar complaints printed from other Internet sites. They know this is not an isolated event, but they and other dealers love to pretend that it's news to them.
Posted By: coolbird101

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 02:38 PM

agree...
Originally Posted By: tig1
Lifters fail regardless of miles. Rare, but it happens. The oil had no connection to the failure. If it was the oil then Hemi's all over the place would have this problem.
Posted By: Panzerman

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 02:43 PM

Originally Posted By: widman
The only problems I've seen with those engines are where people have put 15W-40 in them.
What oil problems have you heard of with 15w40? With the actual MDS or with the Hemi engine. 15w40 although considered by some here as too thick to even leave the container, was actually developed for mixed fleets of gas and diesel engines and I ould think it would have no effects on a regular hemi engine, or any gas realated work truck engine. I can see the MDS being effected. Although I do know some stubborn people who refuse to use 5w20 oil in their trucks with MDS and say no difference with 5w30.
Posted By: RF Overlord

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 02:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
15w40 although considered by some here as too thick to even leave the container,
LOL, good one. grin2

We had a 250kW generator at my work on which I performed the weekly PM checks. Left a gallon of 15W-40 inside the enclosure year 'round and when I needed to top off in the winter, it did kind of go "blop-blop-blop" as it was being poured. This generator also needed an oil pan heater to start properly in Jan/Feb...
Posted By: coolbird101

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 02:53 PM

ive spent considerable time on different dodge forums, seems like people only have oiling issues following neglect, and those usualy start with knocking and flickering oil light, (pick up screen is sludged) . or are you refering to the hemi tick? dont think thats a oiling issue.
Originally Posted By: sky7
A little google search shows that this is common to the hemi's and they have a known oiling issue. When you ask for goodwill from the dealer be nice, but bring in a huge stack of similar complaints printed from other Internet sites. They know this is not an isolated event, but they and other dealers love to pretend that it's news to them.
Posted By: sky7

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 03:08 PM

Originally Posted By: coolbird101
ive spent considerable time on different dodge forums, seems like people only have oiling issues following neglect, and those usualy start with knocking and flickering oil light, (pick up screen is sludged) . or are you refering to the hemi tick? dont think thats a oiling issue.
Originally Posted By: sky7
A little google search shows that this is common to the hemi's and they have a known oiling issue. When you ask for goodwill from the dealer be nice, but bring in a huge stack of similar complaints printed from other Internet sites. They know this is not an isolated event, but they and other dealers love to pretend that it's news to them.


Maybe it's the tick I'm seeing. I just googled hemi lifter failure and came up with many pages of lifter complaints and I ASSumed they were related. I stand corrected.

At any rate, 65k is premature.
Posted By: BullyT

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 03:29 PM

Originally Posted By: sky7
A little google search shows that this is common to the hemi's and they have a known lifter issue. When you ask for goodwill from the dealer be nice, but bring in a huge stack of similar complaints printed from other Internet sites. They know this is not an isolated event, but they and other dealers love to pretend that it's news to them.


You are correct that the "Hemi tick" is a common issue, but it is more of an annoyance than anything...it doesn't affect long term durability of the engine. I didn't get the common Hemi tick which tends to disappear when the engine warms up. My engine was fine for 65,000 miles then from one day to the next it developed a loud tick--almost a knocking sound. It was also continuous--hot or cold engine. A slight Hemi tick is common, a collapsed lifter is not.
Posted By: KCJeep

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 04:34 PM

This was a common problem on the 3.7 V6's and 4.7 V8's, mostly the pre 2008 versions though. Never heard of it on a 5.7 Hemi.
Posted By: coolbird101

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 06:09 PM

yes, this what I have seen as well, in most cases the hemi tick is just broken exaust manifold bolts.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
This was a common problem on the 3.7 V6's and 4.7 V8's, mostly the pre 2008 versions though. Never heard of it on a 5.7 Hemi.
Posted By: fdcg27

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 08:51 PM

I think you've just had a random failure.
I don't think it has anything to so with the oil you've used or the OCI.
Look at it this way:
This engine has two valve heads, so every engine has sixteen valve lifters.
If the early failure rate is 1/100th of 1%, or one out of every 10,000, then one out of every 625 engines will experience an early lifter failure.
If the failure rate is 1/1000th of 1%, or one out of every hundred thousand lifters, then one out of every 6250 engines will experience an early lifter failure.
What I'm saying is that the part may have a very low failure rate, and you're just one of those unlucky enough to have had the experience.
Nothing to do with your oil or OCIs, just that mechanical pieces are not all perfectly made, and quality control is imperfect as well.
Posted By: NHHEMI

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 12/09/12 10:02 PM

Originally Posted By: BullyT

You are correct that the "Hemi tick" is a common issue, but it is more of an annoyance than anything...it doesn't affect long term durability of the engine. I didn't get the common Hemi tick which tends to disappear when the engine warms up. My engine was fine for 65,000 miles then from one day to the next it developed a loud tick--almost a knocking sound. It was also continuous--hot or cold engine. A slight Hemi tick is common, a collapsed lifter is not.


Actually, the infamous Hemi Tick does not go away when the engine warms up. The "tick" if an engine has it is present at all times warm or cold. If there is a cold tick that goes away, or significantly lessens, once the engine warms up the most common culprit is a busted exhaust manifold bolt or the manifold itself.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/29/19 10:48 PM

Greetings all:

I find it rather laughable when I hear people suggest that the 5.7 Hemi lifter/camshaft failures are a rare thing. It is quite common and getting much worse.

My name is Joseph and I have a 2012 Dodge Ram Hemi 5.7 that started the infamous "hemi-tick" at about 90,000 miles give or take. Since it was under warranty at the time, I took it to the local Dodge Servicing department in Sumter SC. They replaced a coil pack, all 16 spark plugs, and supposedly did an intake induction cleaning and fuel system flush. Total cost to me was $988 bucks. That's the most expensive tune-up I've ever seen, especially considering the same services were advertised on their own board for about $300 bucks. Personally, I suspect they did more than that and it's my suspicion that changed out a bad lifter despite the possibility of a bad camshaft lobe. They knew our warranty was about to expire so they did the bare minimum to turn the truck back out to me with the hidden repair they did. I know that Chrysler is telling their service departments to hide the camshaft lifter failures if at all possible in order to minimize public awareness.

To get to my point, at about 104,000 miles, the "hemi-tick" came back and eventually turned into a loud knock. Since the warranty was expired, I tore into the engine myself (I'm a retired AF aircraft mechanic), 36 years of automotive repair, and even paint and body repair. So my mechanical skills are not lacking to say the least, without which I would not have been able to sustain my 1999 Chevy Suburban 5.7 Vortec for as long as I have, and still running strong. Sure she's needed work along the way, but she still goes strong. Just for giggles and fun, I pulled the Suburban's engine 3 years ago and did a complete overhaul, bottom and top. The rings were still solid, cross-hatches still visible, and no ridge around the bore-tips. And the camshaft and lifters looked beautiful, despite neglected oil changes (on the Suburban) at times, and about 225,000 miles. The only degredation I noted were my intake and exhaust valves which were all pitted, so I replaced the valves and lapped them in my garage. To-date, 297,000 miles on my baby and she's still pulling roughly 6,000 pounds of horse trailer (with horses).

I can't say that for my Ram. With only 114,000 miles, the #8 cylinder lifter was destroyed and the roller and needle bearings were missing. Naturally I've got to drop the oil pan to remove all possible debris. Cylinder's 4 and 6 MDS lifters were also damaged as each of its rollers were severely chaffed. I noticed that both MDS lifters for 4 and 6 were not appropriately locked on center as the lock-tabs were twisted to the side, thus causing the rollers to spin somewhat at an angle. This no doubt caused the damage to the lifter rollers for cylinders 4 and 6. Cylinder number 8 however was completely dry with little to no oil, and it's roller is toast, and the camshaft lobe for all 3 cylinders mentioned (passenger side) are destroyed.

WHAT'S CAUSING THE PROBLEM?

This is something I've yet to see anyone explain. Mind you I am a [censored] good troubleshooting mechanic (all thanks to the USAF), and here then is my diagnosis. MDS lifters require oil pressure to expand into the locked position. This temporarily robs the oil supply volume just long enough to lock the lifters into place. Once locked, oil pressure is dispersed evenly respective of the applicable lubed component of the engine. Unfortunately, when you have 1 or more MDS lifters failing to lock, oil pressure is lost to the rest of the engine (not all pressure but enough to cause oil starvation). This would explain why the intake lifters for cylinder's 2 and 8 were nearly dry, while cyilnder's 4 and 6 intake MDS lifters were saturated with oil since both of these lifters failed to lock. When an MDS lifter fails to lock due to internal failure of the PLASTIC (did I mention plastic?) keepers, oil pressure continues to attempt to lock the lifter, which of course never happens due to the failure, and this robs the engine of oil to the rest of the valve-train. Lifters that fail to lock also cause the infamous "Hemi-tick". So NO the Hemi-tick is not a good thing and NO it is not normal.

SOLUTION:

Dump the MDS system. This requires camshaft replacement-upgrade to a non-MDS system, installation for solid lifters with heavier duty rollers, removal and plugging of the MDS oil solenoids, and a PCM flash for MDS deactivation. The 5.7 Hemi is a rather easier engine to work on. I found the fan-clutch to be a little more difficult to remove than usual; that is until I realized that after 2007 (or 2009), the fan clutch is not leftee-loossie, righty-tighty, but rather righty-loosie and lefty-tighty. The rest is not that difficult. You will likely find the exhaust manifold heat-shield bolts broken. I suggest not putting that wasted product back on. Switch out to headers if you choose, or simply leave the exhaust manifold exposed. There is nothing nearby that will be damaged from heat. The driver side exhaust manifold is a little bit pesky to takeoff due to the steering column shaft. Or better yet, leave the exhaust manifold on the heads and disconnect the exhaust pipes from the manifold. I chose to remove them in case my heads needed to be worked.

Summary: The MDS lifters are failing to lock and robbing the engine of oil pressure. This is especially worsened by those who might have a nasty habit of idling the engine too long. The loss of oil pressure, especially at idle, causes oil-starvation to the rest of the valve train of the specific bank (1 - driver side / 2 - passenger side) and causing the lifters to fail at the rollers. Once the rollers are damaged, the camshaft lobes will eventually be wiped out. Lastly, I will not be using 5W-20 as the dealership has been using, and yes (for the record), we've maintained appropriate oil-change maintenance, and yet still suffered catastrophic failure. I will be switching over to 5W-30 synthetic once I've completed the upgrade.

I hope this helps anyone else out there. You do not have to agree, but I'm almost certain my prognosis is 100% percent correct. The dry #8 lifter caused by lost oil pressure due to lifters 4 and 6 MDS lifters hogging oil pressure, is clear indication of what's causing the lifter rollers to fail, and thus leading to unfortunate camshaft destruction. #8 lifter was destroyed due to oil-starvation, and lifters 4 and 6 were damaged due to failing to lock on-center leading to excessive oil supply attempts at locking the lifter into place.
Posted By: burla

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/29/19 11:03 PM

Thanks for posting your experience bud, we do have a hemi thread attacking the issue from a lubrication stand point, as much as you can anyway. It surely isn't just mds lifters, we are seeing the same thing with the non mds lifters like in the 6.4, it is just fca quality, or lack there of. Check out ram forum for a bunch of guys who have video'd and posted thier findings, and ram forumz as they have done a better job documenting it. I'd research oil, some formulas may help.

LINK.
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Greetings all:

I find it rather laughable when I hear people suggest that the 5.7 Hemi lifter/camshaft failures are a rare thing. It is quite common and getting much worse.

My name is Joseph and I have a 2012 Dodge Ram Hemi 5.7 that started the infamous "hemi-tick" at about 90,000 miles give or take. Since it was under warranty at the time, I took it to the local Dodge Servicing department in Sumter SC. They replaced a coil pack, all 16 spark plugs, and supposedly did an intake induction cleaning and fuel system flush. Total cost to me was $988 bucks. That's the most expensive tune-up I've ever seen, especially considering the same services were advertised on their own board for about $300 bucks. Personally, I suspect they did more than that and it's my suspicion that changed out a bad lifter despite the possibility of a bad camshaft lobe. They knew our warranty was about to expire so they did the bare minimum to turn the truck back out to me with the hidden repair they did. I know that Chrysler is telling their service departments to hide the camshaft lifter failures if at all possible in order to minimize public awareness.

To get to my point, at about 104,000 miles, the "hemi-tick" came back and eventually turned into a loud knock. Since the warranty was expired, I tore into the engine myself (I'm a retired AF aircraft mechanic), 36 years of automotive repair, and even paint and body repair. So my mechanical skills are not lacking to say the least, without which I would not have been able to sustain my 1999 Chevy Suburban 5.7 Vortec for as long as I have, and still running strong. Sure she's needed work along the way, but she still goes strong. Just for giggles and fun, I pulled the Suburban's engine 3 years ago and did a complete overhaul, bottom and top. The rings were still solid, cross-hatches still visible, and no ridge around the bore-tips. And the camshaft and lifters looked beautiful, despite neglected oil changes (on the Suburban) at times, and about 225,000 miles. The only degredation I noted were my intake and exhaust valves which were all pitted, so I replaced the valves and lapped them in my garage. To-date, 297,000 miles on my baby and she's still pulling roughly 6,000 pounds of horse trailer (with horses).

I can't say that for my Ram. With only 114,000 miles, the #8 cylinder lifter was destroyed and the roller and needle bearings were missing. Naturally I've got to drop the oil pan to remove all possible debris. Cylinder's 4 and 6 MDS lifters were also damaged as each of its rollers were severely chaffed. I noticed that both MDS lifters for 4 and 6 were not appropriately locked on center as the lock-tabs were twisted to the side, thus causing the rollers to spin somewhat at an angle. This no doubt caused the damage to the lifter rollers for cylinders 4 and 6. Cylinder number 8 however was completely dry with little to no oil, and it's roller is toast, and the camshaft lobe for all 3 cylinders mentioned (passenger side) are destroyed.

WHAT'S CAUSING THE PROBLEM?

This is something I've yet to see anyone explain. Mind you I am a [censored] good troubleshooting mechanic (all thanks to the USAF), and here then is my diagnosis. MDS lifters require oil pressure to expand into the locked position. This temporarily robs the oil supply volume just long enough to lock the lifters into place. Once locked, oil pressure is dispersed evenly respective of the applicable lubed component of the engine. Unfortunately, when you have 1 or more MDS lifters failing to lock, oil pressure is lost to the rest of the engine (not all pressure but enough to cause oil starvation). This would explain why the intake lifters for cylinder's 2 and 8 were nearly dry, while cyilnder's 4 and 6 intake MDS lifters were saturated with oil since both of these lifters failed to lock. When an MDS lifter fails to lock due to internal failure of the PLASTIC (did I mention plastic?) keepers, oil pressure continues to attempt to lock the lifter, which of course never happens due to the failure, and this robs the engine of oil to the rest of the valve-train. Lifters that fail to lock also cause the infamous "Hemi-tick". So NO the Hemi-tick is not a good thing and NO it is not normal.

SOLUTION:

Dump the MDS system. This requires camshaft replacement-upgrade to a non-MDS system, installation for solid lifters with heavier duty rollers, removal and plugging of the MDS oil solenoids, and a PCM flash for MDS deactivation. The 5.7 Hemi is a rather easier engine to work on. I found the fan-clutch to be a little more difficult to remove than usual; that is until I realized that after 2007 (or 2009), the fan clutch is not leftee-loossie, righty-tighty, but rather righty-loosie and lefty-tighty. The rest is not that difficult. You will likely find the exhaust manifold heat-shield bolts broken. I suggest not putting that wasted product back on. Switch out to headers if you choose, or simply leave the exhaust manifold exposed. There is nothing nearby that will be damaged from heat. The driver side exhaust manifold is a little bit pesky to takeoff due to the steering column shaft. Or better yet, leave the exhaust manifold on the heads and disconnect the exhaust pipes from the manifold. I chose to remove them in case my heads needed to be worked.

Summary: The MDS lifters are failing to lock and robbing the engine of oil pressure. This is especially worsened by those who might have a nasty habit of idling the engine too long. The loss of oil pressure, especially at idle, causes oil-starvation to the rest of the valve train of the specific bank (1 - driver side / 2 - passenger side) and causing the lifters to fail at the rollers. Once the rollers are damaged, the camshaft lobes will eventually be wiped out. Lastly, I will not be using 5W-20 as the dealership has been using, and yes (for the record), we've maintained appropriate oil-change maintenance, and yet still suffered catastrophic failure. I will be switching over to 5W-30 synthetic once I've completed the upgrade.

I hope this helps anyone else out there. You do not have to agree, but I'm almost certain my prognosis is 100% percent correct. The dry #8 lifter caused by lost oil pressure due to lifters 4 and 6 MDS lifters hogging oil pressure, is clear indication of what's causing the lifter rollers to fail, and thus leading to unfortunate camshaft destruction. #8 lifter was destroyed due to oil-starvation, and lifters 4 and 6 were damaged due to failing to lock on-center leading to excessive oil supply attempts at locking the lifter into place.


The HEMI failure rate is about 11 per 1,000 manufactured. What is your theory of idle operation cause a greater chance of failure?

Also for some reason your posting style and adding off subject information to strength your point is familiar.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 12:55 AM

Joseph’s comment started to sound like a AA meeting intro.

Hello, my name is Joseph and I own a hemi ticker.
Posted By: burla

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by PimTac
Joseph’s comment started to sound like a AA meeting intro.

Hello, my name is Joseph and I own a hemi ticker.


obviously this thread has no interest to you, so why post garbage?
Posted By: kstanf150

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by PimTac
Joseph’s comment started to sound like a AA meeting intro.

Hello, my name is Joseph and I own a hemi ticker.


obviously this thread has no interest to you, so why post garbage?


Absoulty
I agree burla
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 01:42 AM

I’ve triggered the ignored posters by the looks of it. The “new” member JosephA digs up a 2012 thread to confess about his hemi troubles along with more than we really needed to know.

Probably someone from the Ram forum trying to pike the hornet nest.
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by PimTac
I’ve triggered the ignored posters by the looks of it. The “new” member JosephA digs up a 2012 thread to confess about his hemi troubles along with more than we really needed to know.

Probably someone from the Ram forum trying to pike the hornet nest.



My belief is he is a member here with mutiple usernames. Or another banned member who has returned.
Posted By: burla

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 03:14 AM

I've never been banned here, parked once but not banned for adding a y to pimtacks name in jest, wonder who's pulling that chain, and could quite frankly could care less about you and your shilling dude. I mainly came to bring helpful info about the hemi that has helped many people. Many of those people who also posted here, and were met with the same disrespect you have shown me. Why most of them don't bother to post here, eventhough it is thier nature to help folks. Many gf-5 5w20 that met spec are not adequately lubricating hemi's, it isn't a close call. You so called "oil guys" constantly ad hominim attack people instead of making informed statements about the thread at hand. You last garbage statement just another joke coming from you dude.
Posted By: OilUzer

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 07:17 AM

@JosephA,
Can Red Line oil fix the hemi tick?
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by burla
Thanks for posting your experience bud, we do have a hemi thread attacking the issue from a lubrication stand point, as much as you can anyway. It surely isn't just mds lifters, we are seeing the same thing with the non mds lifters like in the 6.4, it is just fca quality, or lack there of. Check out ram forum for a bunch of guys who have video'd and posted thier findings, and ram forumz as they have done a better job documenting it. I'd research oil, some formulas may help.

LINK.


That is correct. But what's causing the non-mds lifters to fail are failed MDS lifters robbing oil to the non-MDS lifters. I saw this immediately upon removing the passenger side head and lifters. Cylinders 4 and 6 (Bank 2) are MDS lifters, both of which were twisted and not locked on center, and both were saturated in oil. Cylinders 2 and 8 (Bank 2) did not get much oil and were nearly dry, and that's because the 2 MDS lifters on Bank 2 were stuck in the unlocked position, and hogging up Bank 2 oil pressure, thus leaving the other 2 cylinders starved for oil.

Bank 1 showed no signs of oil starvation and yet I've seen reports of both MDS and non-MDS lifters failing on Bank 1.

So the cause of oil starvation is 100% percent caused by twisted MDS lifters with the lock-guide-pin-hole being left open with the lower end of the MDS lifter has twisted and cannot lock into place. So oil is continuously pumped into those twisted MDS lifters which robs the rest of the valve train of oil.

For example, if I run a single water hose from my house. At the end of the hose, I connect 4 additional hoses of equal length and size. All 4 add-on hoses should receive the same amount of water. However, if one of the add on hoses develops a leak, the hose with the leak will receive the most water, thereby reducing water flow to the other 3 non-leaking hoses.

This is what's happening to the valve trains on either Banks 1 or 2. Once an MDS lifter fails to lock, excessive oil pressure continues to flow into the leaking MDS lifter, which robs the other lifters of oil. The more MDS lifters you have that are not properly locking, the more oil pressure will be lost to the rest of the valve train.

Joe
Posted By: ofelas

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 11:28 AM

Joe, the non MDS engines have similar issues.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by JosephA
Greetings all:

I find it rather laughable when I hear people suggest that the 5.7 Hemi lifter/camshaft failures are a rare thing. It is quite common and getting much worse.

My name is Joseph and I have a 2012 Dodge Ram Hemi 5.7 that started the infamous "hemi-tick" at about 90,000 miles give or take. Since it was under warranty at the time, I took it to the local Dodge Servicing department in Sumter SC. They replaced a coil pack, all 16 spark plugs, and supposedly did an intake induction cleaning and fuel system flush. Total cost to me was $988 bucks. That's the most expensive tune-up I've ever seen, especially considering the same services were advertised on their own board for about $300 bucks. Personally, I suspect they did more than that and it's my suspicion that changed out a bad lifter despite the possibility of a bad camshaft lobe. They knew our warranty was about to expire so they did the bare minimum to turn the truck back out to me with the hidden repair they did. I know that Chrysler is telling their service departments to hide the camshaft lifter failures if at all possible in order to minimize public awareness.

To get to my point, at about 104,000 miles, the "hemi-tick" came back and eventually turned into a loud knock. Since the warranty was expired, I tore into the engine myself (I'm a retired AF aircraft mechanic), 36 years of automotive repair, and even paint and body repair. So my mechanical skills are not lacking to say the least, without which I would not have been able to sustain my 1999 Chevy Suburban 5.7 Vortec for as long as I have, and still running strong. Sure she's needed work along the way, but she still goes strong. Just for giggles and fun, I pulled the Suburban's engine 3 years ago and did a complete overhaul, bottom and top. The rings were still solid, cross-hatches still visible, and no ridge around the bore-tips. And the camshaft and lifters looked beautiful, despite neglected oil changes (on the Suburban) at times, and about 225,000 miles. The only degredation I noted were my intake and exhaust valves which were all pitted, so I replaced the valves and lapped them in my garage. To-date, 297,000 miles on my baby and she's still pulling roughly 6,000 pounds of horse trailer (with horses).

I can't say that for my Ram. With only 114,000 miles, the #8 cylinder lifter was destroyed and the roller and needle bearings were missing. Naturally I've got to drop the oil pan to remove all possible debris. Cylinder's 4 and 6 MDS lifters were also damaged as each of its rollers were severely chaffed. I noticed that both MDS lifters for 4 and 6 were not appropriately locked on center as the lock-tabs were twisted to the side, thus causing the rollers to spin somewhat at an angle. This no doubt caused the damage to the lifter rollers for cylinders 4 and 6. Cylinder number 8 however was completely dry with little to no oil, and it's roller is toast, and the camshaft lobe for all 3 cylinders mentioned (passenger side) are destroyed.

WHAT'S CAUSING THE PROBLEM?

This is something I've yet to see anyone explain. Mind you I am a [censored] good troubleshooting mechanic (all thanks to the USAF), and here then is my diagnosis. MDS lifters require oil pressure to expand into the locked position. This temporarily robs the oil supply volume just long enough to lock the lifters into place. Once locked, oil pressure is dispersed evenly respective of the applicable lubed component of the engine. Unfortunately, when you have 1 or more MDS lifters failing to lock, oil pressure is lost to the rest of the engine (not all pressure but enough to cause oil starvation). This would explain why the intake lifters for cylinder's 2 and 8 were nearly dry, while cyilnder's 4 and 6 intake MDS lifters were saturated with oil since both of these lifters failed to lock. When an MDS lifter fails to lock due to internal failure of the PLASTIC (did I mention plastic?) keepers, oil pressure continues to attempt to lock the lifter, which of course never happens due to the failure, and this robs the engine of oil to the rest of the valve-train. Lifters that fail to lock also cause the infamous "Hemi-tick". So NO the Hemi-tick is not a good thing and NO it is not normal.

SOLUTION:

Dump the MDS system. This requires camshaft replacement-upgrade to a non-MDS system, installation for solid lifters with heavier duty rollers, removal and plugging of the MDS oil solenoids, and a PCM flash for MDS deactivation. The 5.7 Hemi is a rather easier engine to work on. I found the fan-clutch to be a little more difficult to remove than usual; that is until I realized that after 2007 (or 2009), the fan clutch is not leftee-loossie, righty-tighty, but rather righty-loosie and lefty-tighty. The rest is not that difficult. You will likely find the exhaust manifold heat-shield bolts broken. I suggest not putting that wasted product back on. Switch out to headers if you choose, or simply leave the exhaust manifold exposed. There is nothing nearby that will be damaged from heat. The driver side exhaust manifold is a little bit pesky to takeoff due to the steering column shaft. Or better yet, leave the exhaust manifold on the heads and disconnect the exhaust pipes from the manifold. I chose to remove them in case my heads needed to be worked.

Summary: The MDS lifters are failing to lock and robbing the engine of oil pressure. This is especially worsened by those who might have a nasty habit of idling the engine too long. The loss of oil pressure, especially at idle, causes oil-starvation to the rest of the valve train of the specific bank (1 - driver side / 2 - passenger side) and causing the lifters to fail at the rollers. Once the rollers are damaged, the camshaft lobes will eventually be wiped out. Lastly, I will not be using 5W-20 as the dealership has been using, and yes (for the record), we've maintained appropriate oil-change maintenance, and yet still suffered catastrophic failure. I will be switching over to 5W-30 synthetic once I've completed the upgrade.

I hope this helps anyone else out there. You do not have to agree, but I'm almost certain my prognosis is 100% percent correct. The dry #8 lifter caused by lost oil pressure due to lifters 4 and 6 MDS lifters hogging oil pressure, is clear indication of what's causing the lifter rollers to fail, and thus leading to unfortunate camshaft destruction. #8 lifter was destroyed due to oil-starvation, and lifters 4 and 6 were damaged due to failing to lock on-center leading to excessive oil supply attempts at locking the lifter into place.


The HEMI failure rate is about 11 per 1,000 manufactured. What is your theory of idle operation cause a greater chance of failure?

Also for some reason your posting style and adding off subject information to strength your point is familiar.


My style of posting looks familiar. LOL Well it's me...Joseph if that rings a bell.

If a Hemi engine has MDS lifters failing to lock, oil pressure is wasted on those lifters which robs the rest of the valve train of oil. So idling the engine especially with lost oil pressure towards failed MDS lifters is making the problem much worse.

Joe
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by OilUzer
@JosephA,
Can Red Line oil fix the hemi tick?


I've red that red line helps the engine. But to me, with solid non-mds, 5W-30 should work just fine. IMHO, non weighted engine oil is insufficient to lucubrate a high-performance engine.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by ofelas
Joe, the non MDS engines have similar issues.



Interesting. I've not heard of any non-MDS Hemi's losing camshafts and lifters. I spoke to one of the mechanics at the local Dodge dealership and he told me that only MDS hemi's are failing in the RAM and the Charger. I've heard that some of the Durango's also utilize the MDS system, and so I've read of failures happening on those as well.

To-date, no NON-MDS system hemi has suffered these failures.

Joe
Posted By: ofelas

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 11:51 AM

This makes me intensely curious about what grade of oil is ideal to ensure the Cummins lifters are properly pumped up.

I use 15w40 Amsoil AME, perhaps I should try Rotella T6 5w40.

I believe Dodge recommends 5w40.
Posted By: burla

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by OilUzer
@JosephA,
Can Red Line oil fix the hemi tick?


I've red that red line helps the engine. But to me, with solid non-mds, 5W-30 should work just fine. IMHO, non weighted engine oil is insufficient to lucubrate a high-performance engine.


So thinking doesn't come into play with us who have dealt with this since 2010 and have been posting about since 2011. Many different guys well over 50, many different strategies, many different oils, many different weights including 0w40 PUP in a mds engine. Some better then others, but trust me nobody prefers to buy redline 5w30, it is the most expensive oil of all of them tested, but if you look at the formula there is a reason it is working better then others more then just visc, high moly, high zinc, polar base oil, brached chain lubrication of pao. Interesting thing is 10w30 redline has no vii's and yet 5w30 redline is better at killing the ticks, they must use a different base oil setup with their 5w30, noted by the extra hths of that product, which yes I do realize is viscosity but only part of the picture. So "we" believe viscosity does play a part and a significant one, but so does all of the rest of the formula. So main point, try other oils first, many of them, maybe one will work and that would be cool. But keep in back of your mind, well I tried 3 oils and if none of those worked, try redline 5w30 with a synthetic filter. It has helped many of hemis. If I had to make a guess at what other oils had half way decent chance at tick killing there have been a couple, qsud and if you look at moly level 160 makes sense, PUP 0w40 seams to be many guys second choice to redline 5w30 in the mds engine that is ticking and again moly level over 250 makes sense, I can't think of others off hand, but if I was avoiding paying redline dollars and wanted to kill my ticking engine I'd start there. Many uoa's on the 0w40 PUP on board, most of the time the visc ends up in the 11's cSt, so I wouldn't worry about it being too thick even in a mds engine, many guys are running it w/o any issues or any cel's.
Posted By: burla

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by OilUzer
@JosephA,
Can Red Line oil fix the hemi tick?


It can, it does, it goes way past assuming it does, but it is also one particular redline formula over the others, 5w30 redline. Link to another members video's documenting as much,
redline 5w30 tested against many other oils.

And specifically when I tried redline 10w30 the tick came back, not as harsh as before using redline, but I video'd that as well. Once again, many people are documenting this, at some point maybe the oil guys should consider this is a thing. believe your ears.. Whatever the dealer used had my trucking ticking at a 10 rating on a tick scale, redline 10w30 had it ticking about a 3, redline 5w30 has the engine butter smooth for going on 7-8 years. redline 5w30 is hemi honey for sure.

my truck redline 10w30



redline 5w30

Posted By: dave1251

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by OilUzer
@JosephA,
Can Red Line oil fix the hemi tick?


I've red that red line helps the engine. But to me, with solid non-mds, 5W-30 should work just fine. IMHO, non weighted engine oil is insufficient to lucubrate a high-performance engine.


So thinking doesn't come into play with us who have dealt with this since 2010 and have been posting about since 2011. Many different guys well over 50, many different strategies, many different oils, many different weights including 0w40 PUP in a mds engine. Some better then others, but trust me nobody prefers to buy redline 5w30, it is the most expensive oil of all of them tested, but if you look at the formula there is a reason it is working better then others more then just visc, high moly, high zinc, polar base oil, brached chain lubrication of pao. Interesting thing is 10w30 redline has no vii's and yet 5w30 redline is better at killing the ticks, they must use a different base oil setup with their 5w30, noted by the extra hths of that product, which yes I do realize is viscosity but only part of the picture. So "we" believe viscosity does play a part and a significant one, but so does all of the rest of the formula. So main point, try other oils first, many of them, maybe one will work and that would be cool. But keep in back of your mind, well I tried 3 oils and if none of those worked, try redline 5w30 with a synthetic filter. It has helped many of hemis. If I had to make a guess at what other oils had half way decent chance at tick killing there have been a couple, qsud and if you look at moly level 160 makes sense, PUP 0w40 seams to be many guys second choice to redline 5w30 in the mds engine that is ticking and again moly level over 250 makes sense, I can't think of others off hand, but if I was avoiding paying redline dollars and wanted to kill my ticking engine I'd start there. Many uoa's on the 0w40 PUP on board, most of the time the visc ends up in the 11's cSt, so I wouldn't worry about it being too thick even in a mds engine, many guys are running it w/o any issues or any cel's.



Redlines base oil is not polar. What does a friction modifier have to do with wear?
Posted By: burla

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by OilUzer
@JosephA,
Can Red Line oil fix the hemi tick?


I've red that red line helps the engine. But to me, with solid non-mds, 5W-30 should work just fine. IMHO, non weighted engine oil is insufficient to lucubrate a high-performance engine.


So thinking doesn't come into play with us who have dealt with this since 2010 and have been posting about since 2011. Many different guys well over 50, many different strategies, many different oils, many different weights including 0w40 PUP in a mds engine. Some better then others, but trust me nobody prefers to buy redline 5w30, it is the most expensive oil of all of them tested, but if you look at the formula there is a reason it is working better then others more then just visc, high moly, high zinc, polar base oil, brached chain lubrication of pao. Interesting thing is 10w30 redline has no vii's and yet 5w30 redline is better at killing the ticks, they must use a different base oil setup with their 5w30, noted by the extra hths of that product, which yes I do realize is viscosity but only part of the picture. So "we" believe viscosity does play a part and a significant one, but so does all of the rest of the formula. So main point, try other oils first, many of them, maybe one will work and that would be cool. But keep in back of your mind, well I tried 3 oils and if none of those worked, try redline 5w30 with a synthetic filter. It has helped many of hemis. If I had to make a guess at what other oils had half way decent chance at tick killing there have been a couple, qsud and if you look at moly level 160 makes sense, PUP 0w40 seams to be many guys second choice to redline 5w30 in the mds engine that is ticking and again moly level over 250 makes sense, I can't think of others off hand, but if I was avoiding paying redline dollars and wanted to kill my ticking engine I'd start there. Many uoa's on the 0w40 PUP on board, most of the time the visc ends up in the 11's cSt, so I wouldn't worry about it being too thick even in a mds engine, many guys are running it w/o any issues or any cel's.



Redlines base oil is not polar. What does a friction modifier have to do with wear?



What does wear have to do with hemi tick? Where you talking to me?

as for polarity.. from BITOG
link

2) Lubricity: Polarity also causes the ester molecules to be attracted to positively charged metal surfaces. As a result, the molecules tend to line up on the metal surface creating a film which requires additional energy (load) to wipe them off. The result is a stronger film which translates into higher lubricity and lower energy consumption in lubricant applications.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by ofelas
Joe, the non MDS engines have similar issues.



Interesting. I've not heard of any non-MDS Hemi's losing camshafts and lifters. I spoke to one of the mechanics at the local Dodge dealership and he told me that only MDS hemi's are failing in the RAM and the Charger. I've heard that some of the Durango's also utilize the MDS system, and so I've read of failures happening on those as well.

To-date, no NON-MDS system hemi has suffered these failures.

Joe


Here's a 6.1L (non-MDS) with the same failure:
https://www.lxforums.com/board/the-...ter-failure-2010-6-1-srt-challenger.html

And another, this one in a 2009 SRT8 Grand Cherokee:
https://www.cherokeesrt8.com/forums...dealer-service/194594-broken-lifter.html

It's not an MDS-exclusive issue, it's simply that most engines are MDS, so that's going to be the largest cross-section, and thus the largest group affected. It also seems significantly less common on the SRT engines (my dealer has never had to do lifters on an SRT mill), which my theory is, ties into them having heavier valve springs. I think once they get some miles on them, the springs weaken enough to allow a bit of float, which hammers the needle bearings in the rollers, which causes them to fail. An oil with extremely high levels of anti-wear additives may be effective in mitigating this somewhat, though it certainly doesn't "fix" the problem.

I also can't see an MDS lifter failing "open" providing enough oil bypass that it starves the lifters on the other cylinders. The biggest controlled leak is the side leakage on the crankshaft bearings, which would dwarf any leakage on a lifter. If the leak was big enough to cause a loss of oil pressure, that would be observable in the SRT menu for example, but from the accounts I've read, folks with the tick and failed lifters still had normal oil pressure.

Another theory is that there may be a design issue where there is simply insufficient supply at idle to the lifters (all of them), which may cause them to stick every so slightly in their bores. Combined with weak stock springs, you create a situation like float where the needle bearings get hammered by the lobe, causing the roller to stop rolling and this results in rapid lobe/lifter failure. This could of course affect both MDS and non-MDS engines.

There have been several theories floated, and of course the vast majority of engines never experience the issue, so it may just be inconsistent parts quality from the manufacturer of the lifters as well.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by ofelas
Joe, the non MDS engines have similar issues.



Interesting. I've not heard of any non-MDS Hemi's losing camshafts and lifters. I spoke to one of the mechanics at the local Dodge dealership and he told me that only MDS hemi's are failing in the RAM and the Charger. I've heard that some of the Durango's also utilize the MDS system, and so I've read of failures happening on those as well.

To-date, no NON-MDS system hemi has suffered these failures.

Joe


Here's a 6.1L (non-MDS) with the same failure:
https://www.lxforums.com/board/the-...ter-failure-2010-6-1-srt-challenger.html

And another, this one in a 2009 SRT8 Grand Cherokee:
https://www.cherokeesrt8.com/forums...dealer-service/194594-broken-lifter.html

It's not an MDS-exclusive issue, it's simply that most engines are MDS, so that's going to be the largest cross-section, and thus the largest group affected. It also seems significantly less common on the SRT engines (my dealer has never had to do lifters on an SRT mill), which my theory is, ties into them having heavier valve springs. I think once they get some miles on them, the springs weaken enough to allow a bit of float, which hammers the needle bearings in the rollers, which causes them to fail. An oil with extremely high levels of anti-wear additives may be effective in mitigating this somewhat, though it certainly doesn't "fix" the problem.

I also can't see an MDS lifter failing "open" providing enough oil bypass that it starves the lifters on the other cylinders. The biggest controlled leak is the side leakage on the crankshaft bearings, which would dwarf any leakage on a lifter. If the leak was big enough to cause a loss of oil pressure, that would be observable in the SRT menu for example, but from the accounts I've read, folks with the tick and failed lifters still had normal oil pressure.

Another theory is that there may be a design issue where there is simply insufficient supply at idle to the lifters (all of them), which may cause them to stick every so slightly in their bores. Combined with weak stock springs, you create a situation like float where the needle bearings get hammered by the lobe, causing the roller to stop rolling and this results in rapid lobe/lifter failure. This could of course affect both MDS and non-MDS engines.

There have been several theories floated, and of course the vast majority of engines never experience the issue, so it may just be inconsistent parts quality from the manufacturer of the lifters as well.


I could be wrong, but the 6.1 in the Challenger came with MDS, but was unavailable for the 6.4 Hemi until about 2011. So I believe the first one was an 6.1 MDS engine which became available in 2009'ish.

The Grand Cherokee I believe also came with MDS around 2005, so the second link posted might have been an MDS engine. I might have missed any comment or post from the provided links wherein they specifically mentioned if their engine was either an MDS or non-MDS engine.

I can see your theory as well, and it is sound. And you might be right. But to me, if that were the case, I would have seen lifters failing on Bank 1 and not limited solely to bank 2 (again on my engine). The intake lifter for cylinder #2 was slightly wet, and had minimal chaffing. The MDS intake lifter on #4 was twisted and unlocked, with the locking pin shifted to the left side within the lifter. It was soaked heavily with engine oil. The intake lifter for #6 was also shifted in the unlocked position and its locking pin was off to the side as well (off-center), and it too was soaked in engine oil. Then finally, the destroyed lifter on #8 was nearly bone dry and not even the springs were wet. That thus told me that cylinders #2 and #8 intake lifters were not getting enough oil, meanwhile the 2 MDS lifters (#4 and #6) were soaked in engine oil. So careful examination seems to suggest insufficient oil to the non MDS lifters on Bank 2, while more than ample oil on the MDS lifters (Bank 2). This is why my theory concluded that the reason for failure had to do with the MDS lifters robbing engine oil pressure just on the bank 2 valve train system. I did not mean to suggest that the rest of the engine suffered oil starvation; only the valve train system will likely be impacted when an MDS lifter fails to lock. An unlocked lifter when it should be locked will lead to wasted oil pressure on the specific MDS lifter, and thereby reduce the amount of oil pressure to the rest of the valve train on the same bank. Keep in mind this does not mean that the rest of the engine would suffer oil loss.

I will have to look at the plumbing galley for the hemi engine. I know the oil pump is at the bottom and a tube feeds Bank 1, and a separate tube feeds bank 2. The first valve train to receive oil is from the first cylinder to the last cylinder of the applicable banks. Otherwise, it makes no sense trying to understand why 2 lifters on Bank 2 were heavily soaked with oil, but the other 2 lifters (intake lifters) were nearly dry.

Lastly, I have motored this engine at idle with the valve covers off, and I saw the same results. Oil oozed out near the center of the head on Bank 2 (Passenger side), but nothing on Cylinder 8, and very little on cylinder 2.

At the same time, I can see a valve train issue with soft springs, leading to lifter float, and that of course would cause roller damage. I can only surmise that the reason Chrysler engineers chose to use softer spring loads is to minimize the valve seat stress on the aluminum heads, and also decrease drag in order to enhance fuel efficiency.

Maybe this is all the result of flawed lifters from what ever country they were manufactured. But I'm not convinced this is the case because we would see random lifters dropping out all over the engine, and impacting nearly every hemi engine. Thus, I believe this is primarily limited to the MDS engines, and possibly some non-MDS engines suffering failure. But this I am convinced of. So far, all who have upgarded their hemi's to the Comp-Camshaft, Hellcat lifters, oil plugs, and ECM flash, have not had a repeat of camshaft or lifter failure.

Was it because MDS was deleted? That seems to be the case, IMHO. Then again, it might be as you have suggested....poorly designed lifters using cheap parts. If it had anything to do with the valve springs, I would assume we'd see more lifter failures even with the upgraded lifters and camshafts. So far, I have not read of any upgraded engine failures.

Joe
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by JosephA

I could be wrong, but the 6.1 in the Challenger came with MDS, but was unavailable for the 6.4 Hemi until about 2011. So I believe the first one was an 6.1 MDS engine which became available in 2009'ish.

The Grand Cherokee I believe also came with MDS around 2005, so the second link posted might have been an MDS engine. I might have missed any comment or post from the provided links wherein they specifically mentioned if their engine was either an MDS or non-MDS engine.


Only the 5.7L during those years had MDS, the 6.1L never had it, it first appeared on SRT's with the 6.4L, but only backed by an automatic.
https://www.auto123.com/en/car-reviews/2012-chrysler-300-srt8-first-impressions/54109/

Quote
It wasn’t long ago that Chrysler’s 6.1L V8 HEMI engine was considered massive by modern standards; well, think again. For 2012, the SRT8 engine displaces a whopping 6.4 litres (that’s 392 cubes for the retro) and belts out 470 hp matched by 470 lb-ft of torque.

Not only does the bigger HEMI create more clout, it does so more efficiently thanks to Chrysler’s fuel-saving MDS cylinder deactivation technology.


Also: https://www.enginebuildermag.com/wp-content/uploads/46568ChryslerHe_00000019776.pdf

Quote
All of the 6.1L engines came without MDS so there is only one cam used for them. It has some serious lift, about 0.050 ̋ more than the 5.7L, so the lobes are almost as tall as the journals. Chrysler says it has 283 degrees of duration on the intake and 286 degrees on the exhaust at.006 ̋ and 50 degrees overlap, so it’s pretty aggressive compared to the 5.7L cam.


There is also this 2010 Challenger brochure that notes that only the 5.7L, and only backed by an automatic, is available with MDS. The 6.1L does not have MDS:
https://www.dodge.com/en/pdf/2010_challenger.pdf


Originally Posted by JosephA
I can see your theory as well, and it is sound. And you might be right. But to me, if that were the case, I would have seen lifters failing on Bank 1 and not limited solely to bank 2 (again on my engine). The intake lifter for cylinder #2 was slightly wet, and had minimal chaffing. The MDS intake lifter on #4 was twisted and unlocked, with the locking pin shifted to the left side within the lifter. It was soaked heavily with engine oil. The intake lifter for #6 was also shifted in the unlocked position and its locking pin was off to the side as well (off-center), and it too was soaked in engine oil. Then finally, the destroyed lifter on #8 was nearly bone dry and not even the springs were wet. That thus told me that cylinders #2 and #8 intake lifters were not getting enough oil, meanwhile the 2 MDS lifters (#4 and #6) were soaked in engine oil. So careful examination seems to suggest insufficient oil to the non MDS lifters on Bank 2, while more than ample oil on the MDS lifters (Bank 2). This is why my theory concluded that the reason for failure had to do with the MDS lifters robbing engine oil pressure just on the bank 2 valve train system. I did not mean to suggest that the rest of the engine suffered oil starvation; only the valve train system will likely be impacted when an MDS lifter fails to lock. An unlocked lifter when it should be locked will lead to wasted oil pressure on the specific MDS lifter, and thereby reduce the amount of oil pressure to the rest of the valve train on the same bank. Keep in mind this does not mean that the rest of the engine would suffer oil loss.

I will have to look at the plumbing galley for the hemi engine. I know the oil pump is at the bottom and a tube feeds Bank 1, and a separate tube feeds bank 2. The first valve train to receive oil is from the first cylinder to the last cylinder of the applicable banks. Otherwise, it makes no sense trying to understand why 2 lifters on Bank 2 were heavily soaked with oil, but the other 2 lifters (intake lifters) were nearly dry.

Lastly, I have motored this engine at idle with the valve covers off, and I saw the same results. Oil oozed out near the center of the head on Bank 2 (Passenger side), but nothing on Cylinder 8, and very little on cylinder 2.

At the same time, I can see a valve train issue with soft springs, leading to lifter float, and that of course would cause roller damage. I can only surmise that the reason Chrysler engineers chose to use softer spring loads is to minimize the valve seat stress on the aluminum heads, and also decrease drag in order to enhance fuel efficiency.

[quote=JosephA]Maybe this is all the result of flawed lifters from what ever country they were manufactured. But I'm not convinced this is the case because we would see random lifters dropping out all over the engine, and impacting nearly every hemi engine. Thus, I believe this is primarily limited to the MDS engines, and possibly some non-MDS engines suffering failure. But this I am convinced of. So far, all who have upgarded their hemi's to the Comp-Camshaft, Hellcat lifters, oil plugs, and ECM flash, have not had a repeat of camshaft or lifter failure.


If you had a 1 in 10,000 lifter failure rate, you'd likely only have an engine impacted by one lifter, which likely corresponds with the failure rate being observed. Also, it does seem to require a fair deal of mileage/hours before it happens, which, if it was solely due to starvation, you'd think would happen earlier on, particularly since we know it happens on non-MDS engines too, even if not in the same quantity shrug

Regarding the upgrades: Since the failures usually require significant mileage before occurring, how many of those people that have swapped out their parts have since accrued that same amount of mileage? I'm interested to see if any of the HellCat lifters fail once there are enough out there with high miles on them, that'd be a real tell, though the 6.1L failures are pretty [censored] in themselves, as those engines also had billet steel camshafts.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Was it because MDS was deleted? That seems to be the case, IMHO. Then again, it might be as you have suggested....poorly designed lifters using cheap parts. If it had anything to do with the valve springs, I would assume we'd see more lifter failures even with the upgraded lifters and camshafts. So far, I have not read of any upgraded engine failures.

Joe


It's possible it's also a combination of weak springs and needle-bearing lifters that aren't tolerant of anything resembling float. Heck, if we toss a marginal oil delivery system in there it's a potential recipe for a perfect storm that may require all three things simultaneously to propagate. It's definitely an interesting topic.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 04/30/19 11:51 PM

BTW, so far this is the only 5.7L MDS HEMI oiling diagram I could find:
[Linked Image]

It seems to show that there are four runs up to the heads to feed the rocker shafts and that each of those runs has a solenoid tapped into it for the MDS and would also seem to feed, separately, the non-MDS lifter galleys.

These diagrams from the Jeep site also seem to help a bit:
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

I'll update if I find anything else.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/01/19 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
BTW, so far this is the only 5.7L MDS HEMI oiling diagram I could find:
[Linked Image]

It seems to show that there are four runs up to the heads to feed the rocker shafts and that each of those runs has a solenoid tapped into it for the MDS and would also seem to feed, separately, the non-MDS lifter galleys.

These diagrams from the Jeep site also seem to help a bit:
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

I'll update if I find anything else.


The images you've provided look good. The bottom image you posted shows the travel path of the engines oil through the tube after the oil filter. The first cylinder lifters to be lubed on bank 2 are #2, then 4, then 6, and finally 8; it's the same with bank 1.

Here's a video showing how the MDS system works.

How MDS works

What's nuts about this technology is the use of oil pressure to expand the lifters on demand. This to me would seem to suggest that even oil pressure throughout the entire Bank 1 and Bank 2 valve train is temporarily reduced as the lifters are forced to expand. Once the MDS lifters expand, even oil pressure to the valve train is restored. However, it is my theory that when an MDS lifter fails to expand and lock, oil pressure is needed to sustain an expanded position. While the lifter expansion isn't as strong as the locked expansion, the lifter might still function, albeit at a degraded capacity, and hence causing the infamous "Hemi-Tick". When the lifter rotates due to internal guide failure (made of plastic unfortunately), the bottom half of the lifter might rotate, and make it impossible for the lifter to lock. The roller is thus subjected to uneven forces and the stress causes the roller to wear out incorrectly. Eventually the roller will fail and break, leaving FOD all inside of the engine and potentially damaging other components.

On my engine, #8 was completely destroyed and it's 1/3 of the roller is missing (inside of the engine), and all of its associated needle bearings were gone (also within the engine). The 2 MDS lifters for bank one had chaffed rollers, and one roller with a great deal of slop (up and down, side to side play); this despite plenty of engine oil. The cause is due to riding the camshaft lobe off-center.

Joe
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/01/19 03:49 AM

I saw that video on youtube, but didn't find it sufficiently detailed the oil paths as shown in the first diagram, which appears to show four paths that break off from the main gallery that feeds both the mains and cam bearings, which makes sense when you consider the 4 solenoids. I'd like to find a better diagram though to confirm what I'm seeing. And yes, I'd expect, given the size of the feeds coming from the main gallery, that there would be a momentary "blip" in oil pressure (which should be compensated for almost immediately due to the positive displacement nature of the oil pump) at the feeds for the lifters for the remaining cylinders when the solenoids open. I would not however, expect that this would be enough to compromise lubrication. These aren't ultra high stress locations, and this would/should only be an issue if lubrication in these areas was marginal in the first place.

I understand the reasoning behind your analysis, but that doesn't in any way explain the failure on non-MDS engines shrug

I wonder if the 6.1L used the same lifters? I know the 6.4L does.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/01/19 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I saw that video on youtube, but didn't find it sufficiently detailed the oil paths as shown in the first diagram, which appears to show four paths that break off from the main gallery that feeds both the mains and cam bearings, which makes sense when you consider the 4 solenoids. I'd like to find a better diagram though to confirm what I'm seeing. And yes, I'd expect, given the size of the feeds coming from the main gallery, that there would be a momentary "blip" in oil pressure (which should be compensated for almost immediately due to the positive displacement nature of the oil pump) at the feeds for the lifters for the remaining cylinders when the solenoids open. I would not however, expect that this would be enough to compromise lubrication. These aren't ultra high stress locations, and this would/should only be an issue if lubrication in these areas was marginal in the first place.

I understand the reasoning behind your analysis, but that doesn't in any way explain the failure on non-MDS engines shrug

I wonder if the 6.1L used the same lifters? I know the 6.4L does.


Good analysis. And thanks for responding.

Under normal operation, the momentary blip is insufficient to cause a lack of lubrication to the lifters. However, if an MDS lifter fails to lock (which seems to be the case, particularly with my engine), likely due to the lower half and the internal parts of the locking mechenism twist/rotate off center, the lifter cannot lock and thus the higher oil pressure needed to keep the MDS lifters expanded is wasted, thus leading to oil starvation on the rest of the valve train. I noted this after tearing into my engine. The 2 inner cylinders on Bank 2 (#4 and #6) were soaked with oil, but were stuck in a rotated unlocked position. I'll post some pictures this evening of the 2 lifters I'm referring to. Meanwhile, the other two intake lifters for the non-mds cylinders (#2 and #8) were nearly dry, as though they were not getting enough oil. #8 was destroyed, and #2 showed minimal wear. #8 intake lifter lost its needle bearings and almost half of the roller. The lifter also showed signs of scaring on its edges. This clearly suggests an oil starvation issue, likely during long idle operations; my wife does have a tendency to idle the engine.

Joe
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/01/19 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I saw that video on youtube, but didn't find it sufficiently detailed the oil paths as shown in the first diagram, which appears to show four paths that break off from the main gallery that feeds both the mains and cam bearings, which makes sense when you consider the 4 solenoids. I'd like to find a better diagram though to confirm what I'm seeing. And yes, I'd expect, given the size of the feeds coming from the main gallery, that there would be a momentary "blip" in oil pressure (which should be compensated for almost immediately due to the positive displacement nature of the oil pump) at the feeds for the lifters for the remaining cylinders when the solenoids open. I would not however, expect that this would be enough to compromise lubrication. These aren't ultra high stress locations, and this would/should only be an issue if lubrication in these areas was marginal in the first place.

I understand the reasoning behind your analysis, but that doesn't in any way explain the failure on non-MDS engines shrug

I wonder if the 6.1L used the same lifters? I know the 6.4L does.


Good analysis. And thanks for responding.

Under normal operation, the momentary blip is insufficient to cause a lack of lubrication to the lifters. However, if an MDS lifter fails to lock (which seems to be the case, particularly with my engine), likely due to the lower half and the internal parts of the locking mechenism twist/rotate off center, the lifter cannot lock and thus the higher oil pressure needed to keep the MDS lifters expanded is wasted, thus leading to oil starvation on the rest of the valve train. I noted this after tearing into my engine. The 2 inner cylinders on Bank 2 (#4 and #6) were soaked with oil, but were stuck in a rotated unlocked position. I'll post some pictures this evening of the 2 lifters I'm referring to. Meanwhile, the other two intake lifters for the non-mds cylinders (#2 and #8) were nearly dry, as though they were not getting enough oil. #8 was destroyed, and #2 showed minimal wear. #8 intake lifter lost its needle bearings and almost half of the roller. The lifter also showed signs of scaring on its edges. This clearly suggests an oil starvation issue, likely during long idle operations; my wife does have a tendency to idle the engine.

Joe


No problem. A few thoughts:

- I would think that if the MDS isn't properly activating, and thus just essentially "pumping in place" with the solenoid open, that you would see a ton of oil on those effected units, because you'd have this motion that you wouldn't have with a regular lifter, which should maintain regular resistance to oil supply.
- I just have a hard time with this leak being large enough to cause starvation unless the gallery feeds are massively undersized, because in this scenario, system-wide pressure would be dropping, and thus visible on a gauge.
- I would also expect starvation on the rocker shafts, since they are the furthest point from that main gallery, and run off what appear to be the same feeds.
- Also, if the non-MDS lifters aren't being sufficiently pressurized, oil through the pushrods would also be significantly reduced/eliminated.

Looking forward to seeing the pictures.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/01/19 11:18 PM

Quote
No problem. A few thoughts:

- I would think that if the MDS isn't properly activating, and thus just essentially "pumping in place" with the solenoid open, that you would see a ton of oil on those effected units, because you'd have this motion that you wouldn't have with a regular lifter, which should maintain regular resistance to oil supply.
- I just have a hard time with this leak being large enough to cause starvation unless the gallery feeds are massively undersized, because in this scenario, system-wide pressure would be dropping, and thus visible on a gauge.
- I would also expect starvation on the rocker shafts, since they are the furthest point from that main gallery, and run off what appear to be the same feeds.
- Also, if the non-MDS lifters aren't being sufficiently pressurized, oil through the pushrods would also be significantly reduced/eliminated.

Looking forward to seeing the pictures.
[b][/b]

That is exactly what I found when I first removed the lifters, and that's when I came to the conclusion that the MDS lifters were wasting oil pressure for the valve train on Bank 2 (Passenger side). The 2 stuck lifters (unlocked) were drenched with oil. Meanwhile, the #8 Intake lifter was nearly bone dry and thus the reason for it's total destruction of the roller, which also showed signs of chaffing on its edges. The intake lifter on Cylinder 2 (again bank 2) had some oil, but minor scaring on the roller. I'll post the pictures momentarily.

[Linked Image]
Cylinder #8 Lifter which was dry and missing all of the needle bearings plus about 1/3 of the roller bearing. It was nearly dry when I pulled out this lifter

[Linked Image]
MDS Lifter for Cylinder #4 - Notice the severe scarring of the roller. This lifter was stuck in the unlocked position and was also drenched in oil

[Linked Image]
MDS Lifter for Cylinder #6 - Notice the roller scarring and the lock pin off center - this lifter was also drenched in oil

[Linked Image]
Cylinder #8 Lifter - Again showing total destruction of the roller and its needle bearings. The debris is somewhere in the engine...

As you can see, the #4 and #6 Lifters were stuck in the unlocked position with the locking pins off center and the lower half of the lifters were rotated, and thus causing severe chaffing of the roller as seen by the damage. And #8 was completely destroyed. I did not include the lifter for Cylinder #2 since minimal damage was noticed. There was minor scaring on the #2 intake lifter but not as severe as the rest.

All the lifters for Bank 1 (Driver side) were very good, with slight exception to Cylinder #1 intake lifter which also had minor scarring. And all the lifters on Bank 1 were very wet with oil.

So the question remains. Why were the solid lifters for Cylinders 2 and 8 nearly dry, while the MDS lifters for Cylinders 4 and 6 were soaking wet? While the photo's do not show oil saturation at the time of removal (naturally I wiped them all down for inspection), my stated oil conditions of the lifters were noted upon removing them. There can only be one explanation, and it is a logical conclusion. For some reason, Cylinders 2 and 8 intake lifters did not receive sufficient lubrication. And it is my strongest opinion that the MDS lifters were hogging up wasted oil volume due to both lifters being stuck in the unlocked position, the poppet hole being left open allowed for additional oil volume to saturate the 2 lifters since they both failed to lock. Had the lifters locked, then no additional oil pressure and volume would have been lost, and the entire valve train would have functioned as usual.

Joe
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Quote
No problem. A few thoughts:

- I would think that if the MDS isn't properly activating, and thus just essentially "pumping in place" with the solenoid open, that you would see a ton of oil on those effected units, because you'd have this motion that you wouldn't have with a regular lifter, which should maintain regular resistance to oil supply.
- I just have a hard time with this leak being large enough to cause starvation unless the gallery feeds are massively undersized, because in this scenario, system-wide pressure would be dropping, and thus visible on a gauge.
- I would also expect starvation on the rocker shafts, since they are the furthest point from that main gallery, and run off what appear to be the same feeds.
- Also, if the non-MDS lifters aren't being sufficiently pressurized, oil through the pushrods would also be significantly reduced/eliminated.

Looking forward to seeing the pictures.
[b][/b]

That is exactly what I found when I first removed the lifters, and that's when I came to the conclusion that the MDS lifters were wasting oil pressure for the valve train on Bank 2 (Passenger side). The 2 stuck lifters (unlocked) were drenched with oil. Meanwhile, the #8 Intake lifter was nearly bone dry and thus the reason for it's total destruction of the roller, which also showed signs of chaffing on its edges. The intake lifter on Cylinder 2 (again bank 2) had some oil, but minor scaring on the roller. I'll post the pictures momentarily.

[Linked Image]
Cylinder #8 Lifter which was dry and missing all of the needle bearings plus about 1/3 of the roller bearing. It was nearly dry when I pulled out this lifter

[Linked Image]
MDS Lifter for Cylinder #4 - Notice the severe scarring of the roller. This lifter was stuck in the unlocked position and was also drenched in oil

[Linked Image]
MDS Lifter for Cylinder #6 - Notice the roller scarring and the lock pin off center - this lifter was also drenched in oil

[Linked Image]
Cylinder #8 Lifter - Again showing total destruction of the roller and its needle bearings. The debris is somewhere in the engine...

As you can see, the #4 and #6 Lifters were stuck in the unlocked position with the locking pins off center and the lower half of the lifters were rotated, and thus causing severe chaffing of the roller as seen by the damage. And #8 was completely destroyed. I did not include the lifter for Cylinder #2 since minimal damage was noticed. There was minor scaring on the #2 intake lifter but not as severe as the rest.

All the lifters for Bank 1 (Driver side) were very good, with slight exception to Cylinder #1 intake lifter which also had minor scarring. And all the lifters on Bank 1 were very wet with oil.

So the question remains. Why were the solid lifters for Cylinders 2 and 8 nearly dry, while the MDS lifters for Cylinders 4 and 6 were soaking wet? While the photo's do not show oil saturation at the time of removal (naturally I wiped them all down for inspection), my stated oil conditions of the lifters were noted upon removing them. There can only be one explanation, and it is a logical conclusion. For some reason, Cylinders 2 and 8 intake lifters did not receive sufficient lubrication. And it is my strongest opinion that the MDS lifters were hogging up wasted oil volume due to both lifters being stuck in the unlocked position, the poppet hole being left open allowed for additional oil volume to saturate the 2 lifters since they both failed to lock. Had the lifters locked, then no additional oil pressure and volume would have been lost, and the entire valve train would have functioned as usual.

Joe


So does this not beg the question why the rollers that are drenched in oil still experienced massive damage to the rollers?
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 12:49 AM

Quote
So does this not beg the question why the rollers that are drenched in oil still experienced massive damage to the rollers?


At first, I wondered the same thing. The answer was obvious when I recognized the lower end of each of the MDS lifters was rotated, and the locking tabs were off center. This was also the reason for the Hemi-Tick since neither lifter were expanded to the fullest extension. So there was lifter float, and rotated rollers riding the camshaft lobes at a slight angle. In time, the rollers would likely have been destroyed as the #8 lifter had suffered. It was the banging of the MDS lifters that caused roller damage, combined with the rollers rotating at a slight angle.

I'm not convinced the problem is strictly faulty lifters or its design EXCEPT the MDS lifters and its internal locking/unlocking mechanism; the locking mechanism I'm told utilizes plastic keepers...very stupid idea.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that GM is suffering the exact same problem with lifters failing due to the utilization of the AFM technology. As with Chysler's MDS failures, GM's AFM failures are showing the same results...destroyed lifters and camshafts.

Can it be any more obvious as to the reasons why this kind of technology is leading to expensive failures? Instead, Chrysler continues to play their usual legal games, "It's all about oil changes! No receipts or proof of oil changes, then no assistance". THEN, if the customer DOES prove oil changes, they then try resorting to accusations of poor driving habits, i.e. hot dogging, long idle times, blah blah blah.

Chrysler has proven time and time again the consumers are only important when their bank accounts are emptied. And to-date, Chrysler represents the worst of all the automotive industry, and refusing to own up to its costly mistakes, and leaving consumers to pay the bill.

I've been screwed 3 times now by Chrysler, and I promise that will never happen again. NEVER! I've owned 2 prior troublesome Dodge products, both of which failed prematurely. Yet despite routine oil changes, both engines failed far too soon.

I feel Chrysler should pay back the tax payers for all of the bailout money they stole from the American tax payers. And they should absorb 100% percent of the costs associated with these camshaft and lifter failures. Own up to the product they crapped out of their a-holes.

Joe
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 12:58 AM

With the history of the HEMI failure going back pre MDS with the same type of failure it's not MDS.
Posted By: tiger862

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 01:03 AM

I looked at these lifters you put and I can guarantee that a new set of lifters will not fix. The lifter bore is out of spec. I see lifter wear at bore so lifter is moving and binding. Your oil loss theory is interesting but I would have to remove engine and have bore fixed as well as cam journal.
Posted By: burla

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 02:29 AM

How was the cam lob Joseph? Sorry if you mentioned it already, I didn't catch all of that info.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 02:51 AM

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.


Yes, I've mentioned that a couple of times now.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Quote
So does this not beg the question why the rollers that are drenched in oil still experienced massive damage to the rollers?


At first, I wondered the same thing. The answer was obvious when I recognized the lower end of each of the MDS lifters was rotated, and the locking tabs were off center. This was also the reason for the Hemi-Tick since neither lifter were expanded to the fullest extension. So there was lifter float, and rotated rollers riding the camshaft lobes at a slight angle. In time, the rollers would likely have been destroyed as the #8 lifter had suffered. It was the banging of the MDS lifters that caused roller damage, combined with the rollers rotating at a slight angle.

Joe


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.

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

Now, as I am sure we can agree, the internals intentionally collapse when MDS is activated, that's how the system works. I agree that in your pictures the internals have obviously twisted, but was the section that engages the pushrod still "up"? I would expect in that situation you'd just end up in a quasi-permanent MDS state, which wouldn't be any more inclined to float than typical MDS operation, unless there was serious internal bind taking place, which, from the design, pictures, doesn't look like it would be easily achievable.

I mean, essentially, you are describing two completely different failure scenarios taking place simultaneously:
- Lifters are being starved of oil, causing them to fail
- MDS lifters are failing internally, bathing themselves in oil, but also failing, the theory being that wear we are seeing is due to float and/or twisting, the latter which would imply an issue with the guide mechanism for keeping the lifters straight.

Is it not possible that the material being shed by the failing lifter is making its way to its neighbours and causing the wear/damage we are observing on these rollers and potentially the reason for the MDS malfunction? I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility. In this case, it would then also explain the presence of the issue on non-MDS engines.

I've mulled this over myself, hence the theories I presented at the onset of this discussion. The problem is that we need a failure mode that works in all situations:
- When a non-MDS lifter, that may look properly lubricated, in an MDS engine fails
- When an MDS lifter in an MDS engine fails
- When a non-MDS lifter in a non-MDS engine fails

What are the common parts?
- The non-MDS lifters
- The lifter guides
- The lube delivery paths (mostly)

What are our potential failure models that could work for all the above?
- I noted it could be float and you seem to have latched onto that somewhat. But I have a hard time picturing that happening on the 6.4L or 6.1L unless Chrysler was cheap with the valve springs. Float hammering the lifters wouldn't care whether they were MDS or not, and needle bearings aren't tolerant of this.
- You noted it could be oil starvation from marginal lubricant system design. This also, assuming that it's a design issue that doesn't care about MDS, is a potential culprit.
- It could be wear of the plastic/nylon lifter guides, allowing them to wiggle/rotate/run off-centre, which could lead to the roller not rolling or skating at an angle, locking up and wiping out both the lobe and lifter
- ?

I think with any of the above theories we need to consider that once a lifter starts failing, it's going to be casting metal bits which are going to end up on adjacent lobes and could lead to cascading failure if not caught quickly.
Posted By: tiger862

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JosephA
Quote
So does this not beg the question why the rollers that are drenched in oil still experienced massive damage to the rollers?


At first, I wondered the same thing. The answer was obvious when I recognized the lower end of each of the MDS lifters was rotated, and the locking tabs were off center. This was also the reason for the Hemi-Tick since neither lifter were expanded to the fullest extension. So there was lifter float, and rotated rollers riding the camshaft lobes at a slight angle. In time, the rollers would likely have been destroyed as the #8 lifter had suffered. It was the banging of the MDS lifters that caused roller damage, combined with the rollers rotating at a slight angle.

Joe


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.

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

Now, as I am sure we can agree, the internals intentionally collapse when MDS is activated, that's how the system works. I agree that in your pictures the internals have obviously twisted, but was the section that engages the pushrod still "up"? I would expect in that situation you'd just end up in a quasi-permanent MDS state, which wouldn't be any more inclined to float than typical MDS operation, unless there was serious internal bind taking place, which, from the design, pictures, doesn't look like it would be easily achievable.

I mean, essentially, you are describing two completely different failure scenarios taking place simultaneously:
- Lifters are being starved of oil, causing them to fail
- MDS lifters are failing internally, bathing themselves in oil, but also failing, the theory being that wear we are seeing is due to float and/or twisting, the latter which would imply an issue with the guide mechanism for keeping the lifters straight.

Is it not possible that the material being shed by the failing lifter is making its way to its neighbours and causing the wear/damage we are observing on these rollers and potentially the reason for the MDS malfunction? I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility. In this case, it would then also explain the presence of the issue on non-MDS engines.

Thank you Overkill as you stated what I noticed. A twist as he called it along with oil starvation you can have bore issues. For this reason engine needs to go to machine shop. Parts for complete overhaul as well as cam and lifters. You could possibly put cam and lifters in but that is only going to be a bandaid without finding root causes.
Posted By: burla

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 05:51 AM

There has been guys that change lifters only to still have the tick, some changed lifters because of the tick and before any failures. But, also many guys have just changed lifters and had tick disappear, and cam and lifters and also had tick disappear. There is no uniform block tolerance issue, but it certainly makes sense that is part of it. dyi cam install. Not for you Joseph as you already can do your own, but in case someone else wants to give it a go. Out of warranty cam/lifters have ranged from 3900 to 12,000 from the dealer, most in the 5/6 grand range. More ticks are repoted every week, these things are failing at a high rate, most right out of warrarty, it is usually 70k to 150k miles. Both ram forums have extended info, but it is good to see more discusion here. This problem is just gonna get worse as these trucks age.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:31 AM

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
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by tiger862
I looked at these lifters you put and I can guarantee that a new set of lifters will not fix. The lifter bore is out of spec. I see lifter wear at bore so lifter is moving and binding. Your oil loss theory is interesting but I would have to remove engine and have bore fixed as well as cam journal.


You might be correct and that is why I have not ordered new parts yet. I told my wife it's best to just yank the engine. Heck I only have to remove the Transmission bolts since the entire engine has been gutted. LOL I thought of going to a jasper engine, but their reputation sucks to say the least.

One thing is for certain. I will NOT be installing the MDS garbage. The technology just do not work, and the little savings you supposedly get from the MDS in fuel, is lost in damage/destruction/repair. Thus, MDS is a wasted technology that is not reliable; so much so that even GM is having the same issues with their AFM (cylinder deactivation) technology.

Joe
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:36 AM

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
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:38 AM

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.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:53 AM

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.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 12:07 PM

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.
Posted By: BigShug681

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 12:41 PM

The great tickening of 2019
Posted By: burla

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 05:19 PM

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
Posted By: Treadstone

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 07:40 PM

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.
Posted By: Skippy722

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by BigShug681
The great tickening of 2019


Is it really a HEMI if it doesn’t tick?
Posted By: Treadstone

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by BigShug681
The great tickening of 2019



The plot tickens.....
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 09:34 PM

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.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 10:55 PM

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
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:08 PM

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
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:16 PM

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
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:16 PM

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.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:25 PM

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
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:27 PM

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.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:32 PM

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.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/02/19 11:48 PM

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.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 01:30 AM

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
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 01:49 AM

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
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 02:08 AM

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.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 02:10 AM

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
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 02:18 AM

Here is an SRT that suffered the same lifter failure as my MDS lifters did, but his rotated 90 degrees; a lot more than mine.

Quote
Wondering how common this is, or if any of you have experienced it. Recently, I had one of the lifters fail in my 2014 SRT, it had ~ 50k miles on it at the time of failure. The failure of the lifter (which rotated 90 degrees) caused the cam lobe to wear out.

The repair ended up costing a little over $7000CAD (~5600USD). Unfortunately in Canada, us SRT owners get stuck with a 36k/3 year warranty, so I was out of luck with that, and Chrysler did not offer to help (although they did say I could go to the dealer for a free re-fix of my brake booster fix -- thanks).

Quite concerning is the fact that I am apprehensive that it may happen again because I don't truly know what the root cause was, and/or how common it is.

Attaching pictures of the camshaft & failed lifter.


And here another guy explains how the lifters are failing and rotating off center:

Quote
Because the lifter retainer is plastic it can break or spread apart and allow the lifter to rotate which it is not designed to do. other designs connect both lifters together with a tie bar or other designs. Also if the retainer screws loosen the lifter will fall out and again same problem.


Source: https://jeepgarage.org/f97/2014-srt-lifter-failure-causing-cam-failure-7k-repair-187554.html

I am pretty sure it is becoming quite clear that any form of displacement on demand system is doomed to failure. While some might reach 150,000 miles, thousands of others are failing prematurely. I supposed this all hinges on oil-change frequencies, quality of oil used, driving habits, regional climate, etc. But no matter the causes, there is no doubt that any DOD (or MDS) is doomed to fail at one point or another.

Are the MDS (OR AFM) savings (if any) worth the cost of maintenance and/or repairs? At $7,000 dollars give or take, I'd say the answer is an astounding NO!

Joe
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 02:26 AM

There was a point made on another hemi tick thread here that no oil will fix a engineering fault. I believe that. A thick oil or a oil with tons of moly will only mask the problem or delay the inevitable failure.

Whether the failure rate is 2% or 20%, it comes across to me that consumers who buy these hemi engined vehicles are playing a lottery of sorts. Most may not even know the issue exists.
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by PimTac
There was a point made on another hemi tick thread here that no oil will fix a engineering fault. I believe that. A thick oil or a oil with tons of moly will only mask the problem or delay the inevitable failure.

Whether the failure rate is 2% or 20%, it comes across to me that consumers who buy these hemi engined vehicles are playing a lottery of sorts. Most may not even know the issue exists.




The HEMI and GM V8's are actually failing at lower rate then the industry average. So everyone is playing the lottery.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by PimTac
There was a point made on another hemi tick thread here that no oil will fix a engineering fault. I believe that. A thick oil or a oil with tons of moly will only mask the problem or delay the inevitable failure.

Whether the failure rate is 2% or 20%, it comes across to me that consumers who buy these hemi engined vehicles are playing a lottery of sorts. Most may not even know the issue exists.




The HEMI and GM V8's are actually failing at lower rate then the industry average. So everyone is playing the lottery.



In some ways yes. Changes in engines and cars in general are happening quickly. There is a mantra here that buyers should wait a couple or so years for the bugs to get worked out. Unfortunately the changes are happening faster than that.
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 02:42 AM

The HEMI has been in production for close to 17 years.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Here is an SRT that suffered the same lifter failure as my MDS lifters did, but his rotated 90 degrees; a lot more than mine.

Quote
Wondering how common this is, or if any of you have experienced it. Recently, I had one of the lifters fail in my 2014 SRT, it had ~ 50k miles on it at the time of failure. The failure of the lifter (which rotated 90 degrees) caused the cam lobe to wear out.

The repair ended up costing a little over $7000CAD (~5600USD). Unfortunately in Canada, us SRT owners get stuck with a 36k/3 year warranty, so I was out of luck with that, and Chrysler did not offer to help (although they did say I could go to the dealer for a free re-fix of my brake booster fix -- thanks).

Quite concerning is the fact that I am apprehensive that it may happen again because I don't truly know what the root cause was, and/or how common it is.

Attaching pictures of the camshaft & failed lifter.


And here another guy explains how the lifters are failing and rotating off center:

Quote
Because the lifter retainer is plastic it can break or spread apart and allow the lifter to rotate which it is not designed to do. other designs connect both lifters together with a tie bar or other designs. Also if the retainer screws loosen the lifter will fall out and again same problem.


Source: https://jeepgarage.org/f97/2014-srt-lifter-failure-causing-cam-failure-7k-repair-187554.html

I am pretty sure it is becoming quite clear that any form of displacement on demand system is doomed to failure. While some might reach 150,000 miles, thousands of others are failing prematurely. I supposed this all hinges on oil-change frequencies, quality of oil used, driving habits, regional climate, etc. But no matter the causes, there is no doubt that any DOD (or MDS) is doomed to fail at one point or another.

Are the MDS (OR AFM) savings (if any) worth the cost of maintenance and/or repairs? At $7,000 dollars give or take, I'd say the answer is an astounding NO!

Joe


That's exactly what I was pointing to earlier. The plastic guide that sits on top of the lifters and keep them straight can likely quite readily warp, deform or fail, allowing the lifters to either rock around or rotate, which he experienced. That has nothing (or very little) to do with MDS, but it could DEFINITELY lead to lifter failure, and thus wiping out a lobe, as soon as a unit starting rolling off centre.

BTW, once that starts happening, it doesn't take much rotation for the roller to either stop rolling, or "scrubbing" the lobe, which will rapidly wear the roller as well as the lobe, resulting in seizure and what we've seen when they let go.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by dave1251
The HEMI has been in production for close to 17 years.



Perhaps. I don’t know when the MDS system was added to these engines but it seems Fiat has had plenty of time to figure it out.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA
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.


Yes, that's what I was trying to get you to see. You appeared to be confusing that unit with something you thought was internal to the lifter body, but it's not. What keeps the lifters straight are four of these units.

Originally Posted by JosephA
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.


You may want to re-evaluate that. As visible in the pictures, there is essentially a piston inside the UPPER portion of the lifter body that's retained by the pin and once released, is allowed to slide up and down inside the bore of the lifter body, supported by the spring below it. Inside the upper portion of the piston is the small spring and cylinder assembly that gets filled with oil that one would see in a conventional lifter. It being a piston is what keeps it in proper vertical orientation, as I have noted a few times, this is all readily visible in the cutaway diagrams I've provided, but for the sake of convenience, here it is again:
[Linked Image]

The entire lifter body follows the profile of the cam as it normally would, moving up and down in the usual fashion, the difference in operation comes from the inner section of the lifter body sliding up and down inside the lifter, simply keeping pressure on the pushrod, but not actuating the valve.

Originally Posted by JosephA
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.


No, oil pressure is used to press in the spring-loaded pin, which engages the MDS. This is achieved by the activation of the MDS solenoids which supply oil to the passages that interface with the pin section of the lifter body. When the solenoid closes and that oil pressure is removed, the spring inside the unit pushes the pin back into the locked position, disabling the MDS function. There is only oil pressure at that orifice when MDS is engaged. This is readily visible in the video you linked earlier actually, and the spring is visible in the picture above.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Think really clear here. If the hole remains open during lifter expansion and operation, what do you believe will result from that?


I have no problem thinking clearly, just an FYI wink

The oil has nowhere to go, barring bore-to-body leakage, which is inevitable and would happen regardless, except into the body of the lifter, which is fixed volume as again, visible in the cutaway pictures, which clearly show the pin section. And keep in mind, this is only under pressure when the solenoid to engage MDS is active. So you'd end up with an oil covered/dripping lifter, which you'd end up with anyways when the pin is properly located in the bore, except that with the pin out of alignment, MDS may not properly engage and the valve would get opened, despite the call for MDS operation by the PCM.

Originally Posted by JosephA
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.


Where do you think this oil is going? The pin isn't a dead-end pressure point that, if displaced, results in your firehose analogy. It's a reasonably generous interface with a small spring behind it that, when exposed to oil pressure, is pushed back, along with some oil, into the body of the lifter, which is of fixed capacity. The hose analogy falls short because that entire passage is already going to have oil in it and the volume is not vast. When the solenoid opens, pressurizing that chamber to displace that pin, the actual volume of oil required is quite small. Yes, there will be some leakage around the body of the lifter, as already covered, but the lifter body is already oiled in that manner via the conventional oil passages so the overall volume lost here should not be of consequence.

If #8 is receiving inadequate oil, than that's likely an oiling design system issue and not tied into this issue. Which again makes sense once you consider that non-MDS engines have experienced the same failure.

Originally Posted by JosephA
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


I've offered an absolute TON of logical evidence here, so please don't pat yourself on the back too hard. I also have a great deal of troubleshooting experience, that, while not related to my automotive hobby, has served me well in it.
Posted By: Skippy722

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by dave1251
The HEMI has been in production for close to 17 years.



Perhaps. I don’t know when the MDS system was added to these engines but it seems Fiat has had plenty of time to figure it out.



Debuted in 2004 for only cars at first, trucks and SUV’s got it in 2006. The 5.7 got a relatively big upgrade in 2009 to the “Eagle” hemi, and it seems those are worse than the pre 2009 models, I have no real data to back that up though.
Posted By: tiger862

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 12:55 PM

My experience with roller lifter is they don't like higher rpms. On higher rpm with no matter what oil if spring rate in lifters weakens over time you get lifter floating. With this condition lifters lift off cam then back down causing wearing of rollers then breaking of needles causing complete failure. When GM first used rollers in a small block Camaro I can't tell you how many engines we sent back to GM for inspection. No MDS with plastic holders. Rollers and cam replacement under warranty (36k) but some customers put older cam and lifter to fix permanently. Now we complain about replacement parts at 60k up but if you remember older cars in 40s all the through 60s were lucky to last 80k without rebuild. Look at Comp Cam roller failure for older cars. Search and enjoy. Not all MDS causes this.
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by dave1251
The HEMI has been in production for close to 17 years.



Perhaps. I don’t know when the MDS system was added to these engines but it seems Fiat has had plenty of time to figure it out.




14 years ago and the failure isn't limited to MDS HEMI's and the rate of failure isn't any higher then other production engines.
Posted By: SteveSRT8

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/03/19 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL


Originally Posted by JosephA
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.



I've offered an absolute TON of logical evidence here, so please don't pat yourself on the back too hard. I also have a great deal of troubleshooting experience, that, while not related to my automotive hobby, has served me well in it.



As the regulars here know you are quite logical and well researched. And we all know you don't have to be a jet mechanic to have the ability to deduce the causes of failures.


As stated earlier, the new gen Hemi has been extremely reliable overall and the Internet simply amplifies the failures by repetition. Also, there are not very many 6.1's out there but even they had a wrist pin issue in a few that was a catastrophic failure. But you likely didn't hear about that unless you were on the Net on one of the many SRT8 boards that formed long ago. My heart always goes out to the folks who have problems like this that ruin what most think is a good car/truck.


IMO anyone who makes millions of engines will have some failures.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by dave1251
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.


You are using fuzzy math to hide the issue. If there are 650,000 Hemi's sold, and you claim ONLY a 2% percent error rate, that's 13,000 ticked off customers who got screwed. And how do you even know what the exact failure rate is? Are you basing this on estimation, or fact? How many broken down hemi's were sent to the dealership for repair? How many go unreported? Do you even know? Or do you even care? Based on your illogical presumptions that don't explain a back logged status of lifters, some 2 to 3 months waiting time, destroys your supposition all together.

I'm beginning to wonder if you are just a corporate (or paid) troll to spread disinformation on the web to help protect Chrysler (or should we call it Fiat).

Prior to the introduction of both the MDS and the DOD, were their lifter and camshaft failures? Nope. Are we seeing lifter and camshaft failures happening since the MDS and DOD? Yep. Logic concludes then that THERE is the problem.

The big picture is this. People are getting screwed after purchasing a very expensive product that has cost them time, frustration, and money. This is why it is better to buy a truck from a company that cares about their customers, and does all that it can to correct any defects to help protect their image. Toyota has the best customer service I have ever seen. One of my best friends worked in Atlanta GA and he told me how they would replace worn out engines at company expense if there was even the slightest hint of burning oil, and that despite obvious customer neglect. Yet Chrysler, AND GM (possibly Ford) will ignore obvious defects and blames their defective products on customers.

My own neighbor (who works as a Chrysler Tech) read your post....and well, I can't repeat what he just said, but he's reading your post as I type this. LOL Of course, to protect him and his job, I cannot give out his name.

He and his workmates are repairing roughly 2 to 3 of these per week. He is helping me with mine, but I've done most of the work; he is basically here for moral support. But right now, I'm stuck on hold as I have to wait for those pesky Hellcat lifters which are back-ordered to fix all of us "rare" engine failure victims.

You still haven't explained that.....If this is rare and such a small percentage, then why is there a long back order on lifters, both stock and hellcat lifters?

Joe
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by PimTac
There was a point made on another hemi tick thread here that no oil will fix a engineering fault. I believe that. A thick oil or a oil with tons of moly will only mask the problem or delay the inevitable failure.

Whether the failure rate is 2% or 20%, it comes across to me that consumers who buy these hemi engined vehicles are playing a lottery of sorts. Most may not even know the issue exists.



Amen to that my friend. The Chrysler defenders are ignoring the failures and acting as though all is well, and there's nothing to worry about. Just spend $37,000 bucks or more, and we will sell you a fine looking truck. Oh but wait, you might actually get the bullet in the 5th chamber and it will destroy you. But hey, it's a 1 in 6 chance, so all will be just dandy. Happy Hemi'ing....if/when you can.

Joe
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JosephA
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.


Yes, that's what I was trying to get you to see. You appeared to be confusing that unit with something you thought was internal to the lifter body, but it's not. What keeps the lifters straight are four of these units.

Originally Posted by JosephA
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.


You may want to re-evaluate that. As visible in the pictures, there is essentially a piston inside the UPPER portion of the lifter body that's retained by the pin and once released, is allowed to slide up and down inside the bore of the lifter body, supported by the spring below it. Inside the upper portion of the piston is the small spring and cylinder assembly that gets filled with oil that one would see in a conventional lifter. It being a piston is what keeps it in proper vertical orientation, as I have noted a few times, this is all readily visible in the cutaway diagrams I've provided, but for the sake of convenience, here it is again:
[Linked Image]

The entire lifter body follows the profile of the cam as it normally would, moving up and down in the usual fashion, the difference in operation comes from the inner section of the lifter body sliding up and down inside the lifter, simply keeping pressure on the pushrod, but not actuating the valve.

Originally Posted by JosephA
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.


No, oil pressure is used to press in the spring-loaded pin, which engages the MDS. This is achieved by the activation of the MDS solenoids which supply oil to the passages that interface with the pin section of the lifter body. When the solenoid closes and that oil pressure is removed, the spring inside the unit pushes the pin back into the locked position, disabling the MDS function. There is only oil pressure at that orifice when MDS is engaged. This is readily visible in the video you linked earlier actually, and the spring is visible in the picture above.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Think really clear here. If the hole remains open during lifter expansion and operation, what do you believe will result from that?


I have no problem thinking clearly, just an FYI wink

The oil has nowhere to go, barring bore-to-body leakage, which is inevitable and would happen regardless, except into the body of the lifter, which is fixed volume as again, visible in the cutaway pictures, which clearly show the pin section. And keep in mind, this is only under pressure when the solenoid to engage MDS is active. So you'd end up with an oil covered/dripping lifter, which you'd end up with anyways when the pin is properly located in the bore, except that with the pin out of alignment, MDS may not properly engage and the valve would get opened, despite the call for MDS operation by the PCM.

Originally Posted by JosephA
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.


Where do you think this oil is going? The pin isn't a dead-end pressure point that, if displaced, results in your firehose analogy. It's a reasonably generous interface with a small spring behind it that, when exposed to oil pressure, is pushed back, along with some oil, into the body of the lifter, which is of fixed capacity. The hose analogy falls short because that entire passage is already going to have oil in it and the volume is not vast. When the solenoid opens, pressurizing that chamber to displace that pin, the actual volume of oil required is quite small. Yes, there will be some leakage around the body of the lifter, as already covered, but the lifter body is already oiled in that manner via the conventional oil passages so the overall volume lost here should not be of consequence.

If #8 is receiving inadequate oil, than that's likely an oiling design system issue and not tied into this issue. Which again makes sense once you consider that non-MDS engines have experienced the same failure.

Originally Posted by JosephA
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


I've offered an absolute TON of logical evidence here, so please don't pat yourself on the back too hard. I also have a great deal of troubleshooting experience, that, while not related to my automotive hobby, has served me well in it.


As I've stated, I fully understand how the MDS lifter works. And I am correct in my explanation. Oil pressure is used to unlock the pin. But what you are missing is what happens when the oil pressure is stuck open? Does the solenoid know that? How does the computer know when to stop supplying oil pressure to the lifter despite the lock pin engaging or not? Understand?

The solenoid does not simply supply a 1 to 2 second burst of oil pressure to unlock the pin. I've already spoken to a Chrysler Tech who was trained on this engine, and it DOSE INDEED use oil pressure to help expand the lifter. The spring is there for additional force to help speed up the process, but it is also there to keep tension on the upper and lower ends of the lifter to prevent lifter floating.

The upper end of the lifter as seen in my illustration below shows the moving parts and the stationary parts. The yellow line represents the hardened stationary point. The red line shows the moving part. This clearly shows that it is possible for a lifter to rotate internally since there is really nothing there strong enough to prevent inadvertent rotation. But as you've suggested, it can rotate from the top as well since they are held in place by a plastic keeper held on by I believe a 10mm bolt. At any rate, the internals are collapsed when the lock pin is pushed inward, but the roller and body itself can rotate if the plastic keeper fails to hold the lifter in place. My buddy that works at Chrysler seems to think this is what's causing some lifters to rotate (to also include the Hellcast engine). As for the roller bearings, he believes the problem is caused by lack of lubrication mostly caused by MDS.

[Linked Image]

Now back to the oil pressure. One thing you might have overlooked is what happens when the lock pin is stuck open? I believe oil volume is lost there, and that would explain why the 2 non-MDS lifters were not as saturated as the MDS lifters. Unless you want to explain this away with another cause, perhaps a clogged oil passage or faulty solenoid, how else can you explain 2 saturated MDS lifters both with open lock pins, and 2 nearly dry lifters which are both non-MDS? The answer is quite obvious to me. Oil is being lose to the MDS lifters and starving the other 2. This again is basic physics 101. Pressure is constant throughout the system unless their is a compromise. The problem is identifying the compromise. And yet nobody on here seems to offer any suggestions of what's causing the compromise. And no, long idling is not considered a compromise; that is an operation and not a system. If an engine can suffer catastrophic failure from long idling, then we would be seeing both intake AND exhaust lifters being wiped out.

So to summarize the questions I ask of you in a friendly way:

1. How do you explain oil saturation on failed MDS lifters?
2. How do you explain low oil saturation on non-mds lifters?
3. Are the MDS oil solenoids timed with regards to pressure? Or do these solenoids react to back-pressure (as in when the MDS lifters are lock, thereby increasing oil back pressure, and thus closing off the solenoids)
4. If MDS lifters are not the problem, then why is there a huge 2 to 3 month backlog of lifter replacement?

These are very direct questions that require best guesses based on sound evaluation and examination. I look forward to your reponses.

Joe
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by SteveSRT8
Originally Posted by OVERKILL


Originally Posted by JosephA
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.



I've offered an absolute TON of logical evidence here, so please don't pat yourself on the back too hard. I also have a great deal of troubleshooting experience, that, while not related to my automotive hobby, has served me well in it.



As the regulars here know you are quite logical and well researched. And we all know you don't have to be a jet mechanic to have the ability to deduce the causes of failures.


As stated earlier, the new gen Hemi has been extremely reliable overall and the Internet simply amplifies the failures by repetition. Also, there are not very many 6.1's out there but even they had a wrist pin issue in a few that was a catastrophic failure. But you likely didn't hear about that unless you were on the Net on one of the many SRT8 boards that formed long ago. My heart always goes out to the folks who have problems like this that ruin what most think is a good car/truck.


IMO anyone who makes millions of engines will have some failures.


LOL How much are you being paid to say that?

The internet amplifies the problem eh? I suppose a Chrysler tech repairing 1 to 2 of these PER WEEK is simply amplifying the problem by repeating it. I suppose a huge 2 to 3 month wait on back-logged orders for lifters is just internet amplification?

How do you logically explain this?

Joe
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by tiger862
My experience with roller lifter is they don't like higher rpms. On higher rpm with no matter what oil if spring rate in lifters weakens over time you get lifter floating. With this condition lifters lift off cam then back down causing wearing of rollers then breaking of needles causing complete failure. When GM first used rollers in a small block Camaro I can't tell you how many engines we sent back to GM for inspection. No MDS with plastic holders. Rollers and cam replacement under warranty (36k) but some customers put older cam and lifter to fix permanently. Now we complain about replacement parts at 60k up but if you remember older cars in 40s all the through 60s were lucky to last 80k without rebuild. Look at Comp Cam roller failure for older cars. Search and enjoy. Not all MDS causes this.


Hmmm....I have to disagree. While my comment cannot be factually based, but as an owner of 60's vehicles (1966 Ford Mustang, a 1964 Pontiac Granprix, a 1963 Ford Fairlane), I can honestly say that my problems with those cares was rare and cheap compared to today's cars. Camshaft and lifter wear would take several hundred thousand miles, short of someone refusing to change their oil. My 302 Ford had a high lift cam with 290 duration, and man it sounded great. Raced it for nearly a year before the crank bearings finally gave out. Pulled it apart, and the cam and lifters looked great. Sure I saw minimal wearing, but nothing like I've just witnessed with the poorly designed Hemi.

I've owned classec cars, and I can tell you without any doubt that those cars were built to last, and not just for 6 years until it's paid for like modern vehicles are. Sure we had typical brake repairs, coolant problems or overheating, and water pump failures. But overall, those cars were easier to work on. [censored] my 65 Pontiac has roughly the same horse power as modern Hemi's, and yet I still averages about 16mpg on a 3 speed slim-gim transmission. And it would smoke the [censored] out of those tires. Granted I know the modern Hemi puts out a great deal of power. But what good is that power if it isn't reliable horse power?

Joe
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA

As I've stated, I fully understand how the MDS lifter works. And I am correct in my explanation.


I don't believe that's the case.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Oil pressure is used to unlock the pin.

Yes, oil pressure is used to push the pin into the body, allowing the internals to collapse. You originally claimed:

Originally Posted by JosephA
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.


That's inaccurate. Oil pressure is used to activate the collapse function. Oil pressure is removed when MDS is disabled, which results in the pin sliding back out as the lifter cycles, locking it back into place and resuming normal operation.

Originally Posted by JosephA
But what you are missing is what happens when the oil pressure is stuck open? Does the solenoid know that? How does the computer know when to stop supplying oil pressure to the lifter despite the lock pin engaging or not? Understand?

If you ask me if I "understand" one more time I'm going to lose my mind. I have been exceedingly polite in this exchange, please don't turn this nasty.

You are vastly over-complicating the function of the system. It's exceedingly simple, and no, the computer has no idea if the lifters are collapsed or not, it assumed they are when the solenoids are activated.
- Solenoid OFF, MDS OFF, the feed tubes to the lock pins is unpressurized, lifters operate normally.
- Solenoid ON, MDS ON, the feed tubes to the lock pins are pressurized, the lifters collapse.

This is readily visible in the bloody video you linked to. The solenoids stay "live" while MDS is engaged. They turn off to disengage it. There is no split solenoid scenario where the pressure is reversed to re-activate the lifters, they are reactivated via the internal spring located behind the pin, visible in the pictures. The oil pressure is used to deactivate them and keep them deactivated.

Originally Posted by JosephA
The solenoid does not simply supply a 1 to 2 second burst of oil pressure to unlock the pin. I've already spoken to a Chrysler Tech who was trained on this engine, and it DOSE INDEED use oil pressure to help expand the lifter. The spring is there for additional force to help speed up the process, but it is also there to keep tension on the upper and lower ends of the lifter to prevent lifter floating.

The solenoid stays active the entire time MDS is engaged, as I've indicated above.

Originally Posted by JosephA
The upper end of the lifter as seen in my illustration below shows the moving parts and the stationary parts. The yellow line represents the hardened stationary point. The red line shows the moving part. This clearly shows that it is possible for a lifter to rotate internally since there is really nothing there strong enough to prevent inadvertent rotation. But as you've suggested, it can rotate from the top as well since they are held in place by a plastic keeper held on by I believe a 10mm bolt. At any rate, the internals are collapsed when the lock pin is pushed inward, but the roller and body itself can rotate if the plastic keeper fails to hold the lifter in place. My buddy that works at Chrysler seems to think this is what's causing some lifters to rotate (to also include the Hellcast engine). As for the roller bearings, he believes the problem is caused by lack of lubrication mostly caused by MDS.


The yellow section is most certainly not stationary, it's the BODY of the lifter, it follows the profile of the cam lobe! It's what the roller is attached to, and the roller is constantly following the lobe profile. The part that BECOMES stationary when the pin is displaced is the UPPER portion of the lifter, which basically resembles a tall piston, and the internal spring, which you've captured in your orange line, is there to keep pressure on it so the pushrod doesn't get bumped out.

If the internal piston assembly rotates (which it appears to have in your engine) then it may prevent the pin from being displaced, thus preventing that valve from participating in MDS.

And if your buddy has confirmed that the bodies are rotating due to the plastic guide, even in the non-MDS HellCat engine, then that simply compounds my 6.1L and manual transmission non-MDS examples and again shows that the problem isn't MDS-related.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Now back to the oil pressure. One thing you might have overlooked is what happens when the lock pin is stuck open? I believe oil volume is lost there,

To where? I covered that in the post you are replying to here. The lifter isn't a black hole, it's a fixed volume assembly, and that volume is SMALL. There will be leakage around the body, but there is always leakage around the body from normal lubrication, so I can't see this having any real impact.

Originally Posted by JosephA
and that would explain why the 2 non-MDS lifters were not as saturated as the MDS lifters.

Because they don't have a hole in the side that gets filled with and hit with oil. It isn't going to take a lot of oil for them to look significantly "wetter" than the ones without the big orifice in the side of them.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Unless you want to explain this away with another cause, perhaps a clogged oil passage or faulty solenoid, how else can you explain 2 saturated MDS lifters both with open lock pins, and 2 nearly dry lifters which are both non-MDS? The answer is quite obvious to me. Oil is being lose to the MDS lifters and starving the other 2. This again is basic physics 101. Pressure is constant throughout the system unless their is a compromise. The problem is identifying the compromise.


Yes, if you got in there with a hammer drill and put a 1/2" hole in the MDS lifter gallery, you would cause a system-wide loss of oil pressure. But given that the MDS lifter hole dead-ends, that's not what is taking place here. They are wet because they have a hole in the side and it fills with oil. The non-MDS ones are not as wet because the bodies of those ones are lubed through the pressurized hole on the lifter bore, and thus there is no hole/chamber for oil to leak out of and cause them to look more "wetted".

Originally Posted by JosephA
And yet nobody on here seems to offer any suggestions of what's causing the compromise. And no, long idling is not considered a compromise; that is an operation and not a system. If an engine can suffer catastrophic failure from long idling, then we would be seeing both intake AND exhaust lifters being wiped out.

I think this part needs more research. How many folks are actually tracking whether the lifter is intake or exhaust? I'm not going to bother Googling it tonight, and I'm not going to ask my buddy at the dealer because I'm 100% sure he never checked.

Originally Posted by JosephA
So to summarize the questions I ask of you in a friendly way:

1. How do you explain oil saturation on failed MDS lifters?

Already answered that above.

Originally Posted by JosephA
2. How do you explain low oil saturation on non-mds lifters?

Already answered that above.

Originally Posted by JosephA
3. Are the MDS oil solenoids timed with regards to pressure? Or do these solenoids react to back-pressure (as in when the MDS lifters are lock, thereby increasing oil back pressure, and thus closing off the solenoids)

Neither, and this is why I don't think your statement that you understand how the system operates is correct. As I noted earlier, the system is quite simple, when the solenoids open and pressurize the feed tubes to the orifices, displacing the pins, MDS is active. When they shut off, MDS is disabled, as the pins self-seat due to their spring-loaded nature.

Originally Posted by JosephA
4. If MDS lifters are not the problem, then why is there a huge 2 to 3 month backlog of lifter replacement?

These are very direct questions that require best guesses based on sound evaluation and examination. I look forward to your reponses.

Joe


Didn't you just state to Dave:
Originally Posted by JosephA
But right now, I'm stuck on hold as I have to wait for those pesky Hellcat lifters which are back-ordered to fix all of us "rare" engine failure victims.

So why are the non-MDS HellCat lifters on back-order if the non-MDS engines are immune as per your original posit? (despite the ample evidence I've presented at this juncture with examples of the 6.1 as well as both the 5.7L and 6.4L manual transmission cars without MDS also having the problem).

Dealers aren't putting HellCat lifters into engines in for a standard lifter replacement, they are using the OE parts, which would be part numbers:
- 5038786AC
- 5038785AC

Both of which are in stock BTW.

The non-MDS lifters are part # 5038784AC (not in stock) and the HellCat ones are part # 5038787AC and also not in stock.

So, unless there is a rash of HellCat lifter failures (unlikely) I'm going to conclude that this is just a supplier shortage at this juncture. They have plenty of stock for direct replacements on their most common engines (MDS ones) and the ones on back order are for the manual-equipped cars, the 6.1L and the HellCat.
Posted By: tiger862

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by tiger862
My experience with roller lifter is they don't like higher rpms. On higher rpm with no matter what oil if spring rate in lifters weakens over time you get lifter floating. With this condition lifters lift off cam then back down causing wearing of rollers then breaking of needles causing complete failure. When GM first used rollers in a small block Camaro I can't tell you how many engines we sent back to GM for inspection. No MDS with plastic holders. Rollers and cam replacement under warranty (36k) but some customers put older cam and lifter to fix permanently. Now we complain about replacement parts at 60k up but if you remember older cars in 40s all the through 60s were lucky to last 80k without rebuild. Look at Comp Cam roller failure for older cars. Search and enjoy. Not all MDS causes this.


Hmmm....I have to disagree. While my comment cannot be factually based, but as an owner of 60's vehicles (1966 Ford Mustang, a 1964 Pontiac Granprix, a 1963 Ford Fairlane), I can honestly say that my problems with those cares was rare and cheap compared to today's cars. Camshaft and lifter wear would take several hundred thousand miles, short of someone refusing to change their oil. My 302 Ford had a high lift cam with 290 duration, and man it sounded great. Raced it for nearly a year before the crank bearings finally gave out. Pulled it apart, and the cam and lifters looked great. Sure I saw minimal wearing, but nothing like I've just witnessed with the poorly designed Hemi.

I've owned classec cars, and I can tell you without any doubt that those cars were built to last, and not just for 6 years until it's paid for like modern vehicles are. Sure we had typical brake repairs, coolant problems or overheating, and water pump failures. But overall, those cars were easier to work on. [censored] my 65 Pontiac has roughly the same horse power as modern Hemi's, and yet I still averages about 16mpg on a 3 speed slim-gim transmission. And it would smoke the [censored] out of those tires. Granted I know the modern Hemi puts out a great deal of power. But what good is that power if it isn't reliable horse power?

Joe

40 years in the business and I can guarantee you that you are comparing apples to oranges. A 4000 dollar car from 60's with inflation would be 32000 today. The warranty on these vehicles were 2 years or 24000 miles. Roller lifters are now the norm to save fuel but are a higher failure rate compared to older lifters that rode on cams. Like I said look up CompCam roller lifter failure. This is not just Dodge but all manufacturers as they love to float. Do you think taxis, police, fire etc. would be driving the vehicles that eat cams at such a high failure rate? Around here I see so many hemi vehicles with close to 200k or more. Heck I had a guy who picks up junk for a living and his Hemi has 250k without engine being opened but has put 3 transmissions in it and is a 3/4 ton pickup.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by tiger862
My experience with roller lifter is they don't like higher rpms. On higher rpm with no matter what oil if spring rate in lifters weakens over time you get lifter floating. With this condition lifters lift off cam then back down causing wearing of rollers then breaking of needles causing complete failure. When GM first used rollers in a small block Camaro I can't tell you how many engines we sent back to GM for inspection. No MDS with plastic holders. Rollers and cam replacement under warranty (36k) but some customers put older cam and lifter to fix permanently. Now we complain about replacement parts at 60k up but if you remember older cars in 40s all the through 60s were lucky to last 80k without rebuild. Look at Comp Cam roller failure for older cars. Search and enjoy. Not all MDS causes this.


Hmmm....I have to disagree. While my comment cannot be factually based, but as an owner of 60's vehicles (1966 Ford Mustang, a 1964 Pontiac Granprix, a 1963 Ford Fairlane), I can honestly say that my problems with those cares was rare and cheap compared to today's cars. Camshaft and lifter wear would take several hundred thousand miles, short of someone refusing to change their oil. My 302 Ford had a high lift cam with 290 duration, and man it sounded great. Raced it for nearly a year before the crank bearings finally gave out. Pulled it apart, and the cam and lifters looked great. Sure I saw minimal wearing, but nothing like I've just witnessed with the poorly designed Hemi.

I've owned classec cars, and I can tell you without any doubt that those cars were built to last, and not just for 6 years until it's paid for like modern vehicles are. Sure we had typical brake repairs, coolant problems or overheating, and water pump failures. But overall, those cars were easier to work on. [censored] my 65 Pontiac has roughly the same horse power as modern Hemi's, and yet I still averages about 16mpg on a 3 speed slim-gim transmission. And it would smoke the [censored] out of those tires. Granted I know the modern Hemi puts out a great deal of power. But what good is that power if it isn't reliable horse power?

Joe


I've built several 302HO's, as I used to be big into the Mustang scene. Stock roller lifters, which mine had well over 300,000Km on them, were good for a MAXIMUM RPM ceiling of 7,000RPM and a maximum lift of ~.550 with a 1.7 ratio rocker due to the limits of the stock dog-bone and hold down setup. If you wanted to go above that, you needed aftermarket link-bar lifters. If you wanted to go well above that, you needed to switch to solid roller.

In order to retain control over the lifters at that RPM (7K) you needed heavy springs. This is due the the mass of a hydraulic roller lifter. I had a custom camshaft ground by Camshaft Innovations, and he (Jay Allen) recommended K-Motion K800 valve springs, which, at spec height, were close to 500lbs open. He was adamant that it was all about lifter control and his cams tended to work extremely well, and I don't recall anybody losing lifters when they followed his advice.

In that vein however, we did "inherit" a 302HO in an '85 GT that had a CI cam in it, but the guy had gone with aftermarket lifters. They failed. There are pictures of it on here actually. We picked up a stock low-mile shortblock, stuffed that cam in it and put in the proper Lunati link-bar lifters and it ran like a scalded ape right to the rev limiter. That engine survived two cars but eventually the Comp springs on the TFS TW's that it was wearing got some wear on them and she started into valve float at much over 6,300RPM, despite the engine wanting to go to 6,800+. My buddy sold the car, but that was a solid 300HP at the tires engine injected, more when it was topped with a Victor Jr. and a Holley HP.

The failure mode of those aftermarket lifters BTW, was nothing like we are seeing here. The pins holding the rollers in actually walked out, impacting the lifter bores. It was wild.

Here are the pics of the failed lifters:
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

And here is what we did with the cam that came out of that engine, note the linkbar lifters:
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 03:11 AM

OVERKILL is correct on his understanding of the MDS operation.

Oil pressure applied to the pins allows the lifter assembly to collapse, but it's simply a regular style hydraulic lifter INSIDE the body of another lifter.

The pins remaining stuck in would simply make those cylinders de-activated permanently, and not constitute an oil leak draining the main lifter gallery.

Lock pin doesn't HAVE to line up with the hole as shown in the majority of the pics, as the ledge that it locks on is an entire gallery circumferentially around the inside of the "outer" lifter.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by tiger862
Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by tiger862
My experience with roller lifter is they don't like higher rpms. On higher rpm with no matter what oil if spring rate in lifters weakens over time you get lifter floating. With this condition lifters lift off cam then back down causing wearing of rollers then breaking of needles causing complete failure. When GM first used rollers in a small block Camaro I can't tell you how many engines we sent back to GM for inspection. No MDS with plastic holders. Rollers and cam replacement under warranty (36k) but some customers put older cam and lifter to fix permanently. Now we complain about replacement parts at 60k up but if you remember older cars in 40s all the through 60s were lucky to last 80k without rebuild. Look at Comp Cam roller failure for older cars. Search and enjoy. Not all MDS causes this.


Hmmm....I have to disagree. While my comment cannot be factually based, but as an owner of 60's vehicles (1966 Ford Mustang, a 1964 Pontiac Granprix, a 1963 Ford Fairlane), I can honestly say that my problems with those cares was rare and cheap compared to today's cars. Camshaft and lifter wear would take several hundred thousand miles, short of someone refusing to change their oil. My 302 Ford had a high lift cam with 290 duration, and man it sounded great. Raced it for nearly a year before the crank bearings finally gave out. Pulled it apart, and the cam and lifters looked great. Sure I saw minimal wearing, but nothing like I've just witnessed with the poorly designed Hemi.

I've owned classec cars, and I can tell you without any doubt that those cars were built to last, and not just for 6 years until it's paid for like modern vehicles are. Sure we had typical brake repairs, coolant problems or overheating, and water pump failures. But overall, those cars were easier to work on. [censored] my 65 Pontiac has roughly the same horse power as modern Hemi's, and yet I still averages about 16mpg on a 3 speed slim-gim transmission. And it would smoke the [censored] out of those tires. Granted I know the modern Hemi puts out a great deal of power. But what good is that power if it isn't reliable horse power?

Joe

40 years in the business and I can guarantee you that you are comparing apples to oranges. A 4000 dollar car from 60's with inflation would be 32000 today. The warranty on these vehicles were 2 years or 24000 miles. Roller lifters are now the norm to save fuel but are a higher failure rate compared to older lifters that rode on cams. Like I said look up CompCam roller lifter failure. This is not just Dodge but all manufacturers as they love to float. Do you think taxis, police, fire etc. would be driving the vehicles that eat cams at such a high failure rate? Around here I see so many hemi vehicles with close to 200k or more. Heck I had a guy who picks up junk for a living and his Hemi has 250k without engine being opened but has put 3 transmissions in it and is a 3/4 ton pickup.


We have 5x HEMI RAM's at work between 2011 and 2012, all with MDS. We also have a 2014 and 2015. One of those trucks has rod knock, all of them have >240,000Km on them (150K miles) absolutely none of them have had a lifter issue. Every single one of the older trucks has needed to have the exhaust studs and gaskets replaced. Actually, I don't know a single person that has had to have their lifters done shrug I know it happens, but it is infrequent enough that nobody in my circle of hemi owners has experienced it.

IIRC, the Comp lifter failures was due to them outsourcing them to China. Ford had excellent service from their OEM lifters, which were made by Eaton I believe.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 11:02 AM

Quote
That's inaccurate. Oil pressure is used to activate the collapse function. Oil pressure is removed when MDS is disabled, which results in the pin sliding back out as the lifter cycles, locking it back into place and resuming normal operation.


You are correct. But is the oil pressure maintained throughout the deactivation operation? Or is the oil pressure removed once the pin is unlocked? Get my point? Oil pressure is needed to keep the system unlocked. Now I might be incorrect about the oil pressure being used to the last possible second just prior to MDS deactivation; this is possibly to help ensure the lifter reaches maximum expansion. And as soon as the lock pin is just about to lock, the solenoid is deactivated and oil flow to the lifter through the solenoid is blocked, leading to a locked lifter.

Now then, if the oil from the solenoid is cutoff during full engine operation (all 8 cylinders), this would mean that the lifters are receiving lubrication normally by another means; the same means the non-MDS lifters receive oil. And this oil must lubricate both the outside of the lifter (body, rollers, etc.), and likewise as a standard lifter, travel through the inside of the lifter to form a path to the push rods, which in turn lubricates rockers and valve springs, etc. The point is, the lifter must maintain lubrication. And what happens when the lubrication is compromised by a opened hole on the lifter where the lockpin would ordinarily be closed? It's going to leak into the lifter itself. Now using physics 101, would this not equate to a drop in volume flow, and hence a reduction in oil flow velocity?

Put it to you like this. Oil pressure can be used to indicate the age of an engine. As bearings and parts where down, oil pressure will drop due to less resistance between the journals, bearings, lifters, cylinder walls, etc. In the case of the Hemi lifters, if the lock pin is stuck open, then that is the same as a worn bearing; oil travel to that specific part of the system will be reduced in speed, while increased in volume. And a drop in oil pressure/volume to any part of the engine will equate to losses else wear as lower RPM's.

Now unless you want to explain how the MDS lifters are lubricated both during locked and unlocked operation, I fail to see how you are not grasping or understanding what I'm trying to explain.

I will admit my error with MDS operation with regards to the lower half and the upper half of the lifter. I initially assumed the lower end of the lifter is what bobs up and down while the middle half remains stationary. I was wrong. I now understand that the lifter itself remains stationary (through the plastic keepers which might be the culprit causing some slight rotation), and the internals from the top down to the bottom inside the lifter collapse in on itself and the push rod is basically "having sex" figuratively speaking. LOL

So then, back to the point. If the MDS oil solenoid only "spurts" oil just long enough to unlock the pin, then the lifter must remain unlocked by some other means. However, this is not the case. Oil pressure from the MDS solenoid must remain opened during the entire cylinder-deactivation operation in order to keep the MDS lifters from locking back into place. And THIS ladies and gentlemen is what I've been trying to explain to you all and this is what's causing lubrication problems throughout the rest of the valve train. Once the solenoid opens oil pressure to unlock the lifter, this pressure is maintained throughout the entire time of MDS operation which prevents the lifter from locking back into place; the video I posted shows this. Once the driver demands more power, the solenoid remains open just long enough as the lifter is expanding, and oil pressure is cut to allow the internal lock pin to lock.

If the lock pin does not lock, then oil (normal oil lubrication during extended use) is wasted on those lifters. And THIS is why we do not see lifter/camshaft damage prior to MDS and DOD introduction.

Joe
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 11:08 AM

Quote
Quote
3. Are the MDS oil solenoids timed with regards to pressure? Or do these solenoids react to back-pressure (as in when the MDS lifters are lock, thereby increasing oil back pressure, and thus closing off the solenoids)

Neither, and this is why I don't think your statement that you understand how the system operates is correct. As I noted earlier, the system is quite simple, when the solenoids open and pressurize the feed tubes to the orifices, displacing the pins, MDS is active. When they shut off, MDS is disabled, as the pins self-seat due to their spring-loaded nature.


My question wasn't an explanation of how I understand oil or back pressure. It was a question for you as I did not understand where you personally are at with regards to oil operation.

As stated, I do understand how the MDS lifter works and that the oil pressure is sustained throughout the entire MDS operation in order to keep the lifter from locking, which also contributes to its expansion on the very last stroke just prior to lifter-lock. And THAT is where the problem is being caused. When an MDS lifter is collapsed, oil pressure must be maintained throughout the entire time the engine is in economy mode. The problem is also compounded when the lifter fails to lock, thereby causing a free-floating lifter, and normal oil losses due to a hole on the lifter, and hence a reduction in oil flow velocity (with an increase in oil volume), and hence degradation to the rest of the valve train.

The only thing I was wrong about is what parts move on the lifter until I examined the image you posted.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Joe
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 11:16 AM

Quote
Quote
But right now, I'm stuck on hold as I have to wait for those pesky Hellcat lifters which are back-ordered to fix all of us "rare" engine failure victims.


So why are the non-MDS HellCat lifters on back-order if the non-MDS engines are immune as per your original posit? (despite the ample evidence I've presented at this juncture with examples of the 6.1 as well as both the 5.7L and 6.4L manual transmission cars without MDS also having the problem).

Dealers aren't putting HellCat lifters into engines in for a standard lifter replacement, they are using the OE parts, which would be part numbers:
- 5038786AC
- 5038785AC

Both of which are in stock BTW.

The non-MDS lifters are part # 5038784AC (not in stock) and the HellCat ones are part # 5038787AC and also not in stock.

So, unless there is a rash of HellCat lifter failures (unlikely) I'm going to conclude that this is just a supplier shortage at this juncture. They have plenty of stock for direct replacements on their most common engines (MDS ones) and the ones on back order are for the manual-equipped cars, the 6.1L and the HellCat.


None of the lifters (both the hellcat and the stock 5.7 MDS and non-MDS lifters) are available for at least 2 to 3 months. My apologies for not clarifying this.

The dealerships are not modifying the engine. Any Hemi that come in for repair are being repaired to factory level. But those like me, who are doing their own work, are relying on the upgrades recommended by Comp-Cam, Johnson, and MMX, and so the thousands of us who are performing the upgrades are trying to get our hands on hellcat lifters, and they too are on back order.

So both the stock lifters and the hellcast lifters are on back order. This means one [censored] of a scramble by the US (and possibly the rest of the Hemi owning world) that we are in a panic to fix our freaking trucks. There is a high demand for these lifters, but insufficient supply to fill them. High demands means high event of failures. This is a fact.

Joe
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA


So then, back to the point. If the MDS oil solenoid only "spurts" oil just long enough to unlock the pin, then the lifter must remain unlocked by some other means. However, this is not the case. Oil pressure from the MDS solenoid must remain opened during the entire cylinder-deactivation operation in order to keep the MDS lifters from locking back into place. And THIS ladies and gentlemen is what I've been trying to explain to you all and this is what's causing lubrication problems throughout the rest of the valve train. Once the solenoid opens oil pressure to unlock the lifter, this pressure is maintained throughout the entire time of MDS operation which prevents the lifter from locking back into place; the video I posted shows this. Once the driver demands more power, the solenoid remains open just long enough as the lifter is expanding, and oil pressure is cut to allow the internal lock pin to lock.

If the lock pin does not lock, then oil (normal oil lubrication during extended use) is wasted on those lifters. And THIS is why we do not see lifter/camshaft damage prior to MDS and DOD introduction.

Joe


Nope...you don't get the operation at all

The MDS solenoid, through a lifter that doesn't unlock, nor a lifter that fails to lock in an un MDS state is not an oil leak.
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 01:37 PM

Sorry your unable to grasp this power train is more reliable than average and your theory is not correct and you can't accept this.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/04/19 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by JosephA
You are correct.


I know, I've been clear on how the system operates from the start.

Originally Posted by JosephA
But is the oil pressure maintained throughout the deactivation operation?

The oil pressure, at the orifice, is NECESSARY to keep the pin unlocked. So it is maintained until the solenoid closes, which in turn shuts off the MDS.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Or is the oil pressure removed once the pin is unlocked? Get my point? Oil pressure is needed to keep the system unlocked.

I've been clear about that the entire time.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Now I might be incorrect about the oil pressure being used to the last possible second just prior to MDS deactivation; this is possibly to help ensure the lifter reaches maximum expansion. And as soon as the lock pin is just about to lock, the solenoid is deactivated and oil flow to the lifter through the solenoid is blocked, leading to a locked lifter.

And this is where you still don't get it. How is the pin about to lock if the system is still pressurized? It isn't! You've got it backwards. It's the solenoid cutting off the pressure to the orifices that enables the pin to slide back into place, disabling the MDS. Oil pressure turns on, and keeps on, the MDS. Once that pressure is removed, the pin slides back into place on the next cycle, disabling MDS.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Now then, if the oil from the solenoid is cutoff during full engine operation (all 8 cylinders), this would mean that the lifters are receiving lubrication normally by another means; the same means the non-MDS lifters receive oil. And this oil must lubricate both the outside of the lifter (body, rollers, etc.), and likewise as a standard lifter, travel through the inside of the lifter to form a path to the push rods, which in turn lubricates rockers and valve springs, etc. The point is, the lifter must maintain lubrication. And what happens when the lubrication is compromised by a opened hole on the lifter where the lockpin would ordinarily be closed? It's going to leak into the lifter itself. Now using physics 101, would this not equate to a drop in volume flow, and hence a reduction in oil flow velocity?

For what must be the 5th time now, where is the oil going to leak to? You keep envisioning the part of the lifter that the solenoid feeds as a black hole, where oil disappears. It's a small hole in the side of the lifter body with a pin, in a cylinder, which it slides in, that, once under pressure, results in that pin sliding backwards a tiny amount to unlock. If the internal mechanism rotates out of alignment with the hole, it doesn't matter, as the small relief in the body that the pin engages is circumferential and when that relief is under pressure, the pin will be displaced.There is no additional path for the oil to follow. Some may squeeze between the body and the bore, but that amount would be quite small.

I'm going to try and explain this with a diagram:
[Linked Image]


1. This is the standard feed hole present on all 16 lifters that ties into the lifter feed galleries. These are always under pressure providing oil through the body of the lifter, to the roller, and through the pushrod.
2. This is the relief for the MDS pin. It runs around the entire inside of the body, so even if the pin is not aligned with the hole, this is under pressure when the solenoid is live
3. These are the oil paths fed by #1
4. This is the solid block that holds the MDS pin, spring, and the chamber within which this slides. This is essentially the "lifter inside a lifter" that slides up and down when the pin is unlocked.
5. These are the plastic guides we discussed earlier that keep the lifters in-line with the camshaft

Originally Posted by JosephA
Put it to you like this. Oil pressure can be used to indicate the age of an engine. As bearings and parts where down, oil pressure will drop due to less resistance between the journals, bearings, lifters, cylinder walls, etc.

Typically, journals, which are hard, don't wear. It's the bearings that wear, opening up the clearance, resulting in more side-leaking, which in turn lowers oil pressure. Cylinder walls aren't pressure-lubricated, they are lubed with a spray that comes from between the rod and crank. A worn bore will have zero impact on oil pressure.

Originally Posted by JosephA
In the case of the Hemi lifters, if the lock pin is stuck open, then that is the same as a worn bearing; oil travel to that specific part of the system will be reduced in speed, while increased in volume. And a drop in oil pressure/volume to any part of the engine will equate to losses else wear as lower RPM's.

No, it's nothing like that at all. If the pin is stuck open, that lifter simply stays in MDS mode. However, the pin can't be stuck and MDS be on, as the MDS activation depends on the pin being displaced, and thus pressure being provided to the MDS orifice on the lifter body. If the pin sticks, it sticks on MDS disengagement, that is, when the solenoid CUTS OFF, the oil pressure to the lifter, but the pin does not return to the locked position, leaving that lifter in MDS operation.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Now unless you want to explain how the MDS lifters are lubricated both during locked and unlocked operation, I fail to see how you are not grasping or understanding what I'm trying to explain.

You first need to get a handle on how these things function. I've already explained how everything is lubricated, it's your turn to digest that information.

Originally Posted by JosephA
I will admit my error with MDS operation with regards to the lower half and the upper half of the lifter. I initially assumed the lower end of the lifter is what bobs up and down while the middle half remains stationary. I was wrong. I now understand that the lifter itself remains stationary (through the plastic keepers which might be the culprit causing some slight rotation), and the internals from the top down to the bottom inside the lifter collapse in on itself and the push rod is basically "having sex" figuratively speaking. LOL

I still don't think you follow this part.

The lifter body is a solid piece, just like a conventional lifter, that, when the engine is rotating, follows the profile of the camshaft. This is the case whether MDS is engaged or not. The entire body moves up and down, kept in alignment by the plastic guide at the top, just like the non-MDS lifters. When the solenoids receive power and pressurize the MDS orifices, the lock pins are displaced and the solid assembly that is inside the lifter body; essentially the "lifter inside the lifter", becomes detached from the main body, remaining stationary while the spring that is below it keeps sufficient pressure on it to keep the pushrod in location and allow for conventional oiling to continue through it.

Originally Posted by JosephA
So then, back to the point. If the MDS oil solenoid only "spurts" oil just long enough to unlock the pin, then the lifter must remain unlocked by some other means. However, this is not the case. Oil pressure from the MDS solenoid must remain opened during the entire cylinder-deactivation operation in order to keep the MDS lifters from locking back into place. And THIS ladies and gentlemen is what I've been trying to explain to you all and this is what's causing lubrication problems throughout the rest of the valve train. Once the solenoid opens oil pressure to unlock the lifter, this pressure is maintained throughout the entire time of MDS operation which prevents the lifter from locking back into place; the video I posted shows this. Once the driver demands more power, the solenoid remains open just long enough as the lifter is expanding, and oil pressure is cut to allow the internal lock pin to lock.

1. The above again assumes there is an oil black hole that results in pressure loss. This is not the case as I've explained.
2. Once something happens, whether it is the driver hitting the pedal or encountering a grade to increase load, the solenoid has the power removed from it, which ceases the pressure being applied to the MDS orifices, which then allows the springs behind the lock pins to push the pins back into their grooves, making the lifters single units again. The solenoid does not, in any part of this, "remain open" when MDS is called to be deactivated. It is the cessation of oil pressure caused by the solenoid being deactivated that allows the pin to seat, thus disabling MDS.

Originally Posted by JosephA
If the lock pin does not lock, then oil (normal oil lubrication during extended use) is wasted on those lifters. And THIS is why we do not see lifter/camshaft damage prior to MDS and DOD introduction.

Joe


If the lock pin does not lock, that lifter remains in MDS operation, which would be noticeable. Everything else would operate normally. And I've provided numerous examples that show lifter failure happens on non-MDS engines, you claiming that it doesn't at this juncture is utterly ridiculous.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by JosephA


So then, back to the point. If the MDS oil solenoid only "spurts" oil just long enough to unlock the pin, then the lifter must remain unlocked by some other means. However, this is not the case. Oil pressure from the MDS solenoid must remain opened during the entire cylinder-deactivation operation in order to keep the MDS lifters from locking back into place. And THIS ladies and gentlemen is what I've been trying to explain to you all and this is what's causing lubrication problems throughout the rest of the valve train. Once the solenoid opens oil pressure to unlock the lifter, this pressure is maintained throughout the entire time of MDS operation which prevents the lifter from locking back into place; the video I posted shows this. Once the driver demands more power, the solenoid remains open just long enough as the lifter is expanding, and oil pressure is cut to allow the internal lock pin to lock.

If the lock pin does not lock, then oil (normal oil lubrication during extended use) is wasted on those lifters. And THIS is why we do not see lifter/camshaft damage prior to MDS and DOD introduction.

Joe


Nope...you don't get the operation at all

The MDS solenoid, through a lifter that doesn't unlock, nor a lifter that fails to lock in an un MDS state is not an oil leak.


I disagree. And if I am wrong, then prove it. If the poppet is stuck open, and the solenoid is closed, the lifter still needs lubrication despite the fact that it's not doing much work. Are you assuming that the lifter in MDS mode does not get oil, and that oil only comes from the MDS solenoid?

One thing that helps with troubleshooting is understanding the total process of the operation. So I'd like you to explain the entire process of the lubrication of the MDS lifter. Does the solenoid play a factor in lubricating MDS lifters? Or is it soley for pushing in the lock pin so that the internals can free-float via the spring? And if the solenoid does not lubricate the lifter, then the lifter must be getting normal lubrication the same as the non-MDS lifter. And if/since the MDS lifter while in locked mode (solid state) is operating to full capacity, how then is the lifter lubricated? From the bottom up or the top down?

I'm trying to get you to understand is oil in a normal valve train travels from the block to the tiny little holes on the side of the lifter. As the lifter slides up and down (say my 5.7 Vortec), oil travels inside of the lifter upward, through the pushrods, and out of the tip of the rod and falls back into the head lubricating also the springs and rockers, where it then falls back into the oil pan.

Please explain the entire lubrication process. THEN I think you will see more clearly my point.

Joe
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA

I disagree. And if I am wrong, then prove it. If the poppet is stuck open, and the solenoid is closed, the lifter still needs lubrication despite the fact that it's not doing much work. Are you assuming that the lifter in MDS mode does not get oil, and that oil only comes from the MDS solenoid?

One thing that helps with troubleshooting is understanding the total process of the operation. So I'd like you to explain the entire process of the lubrication of the MDS lifter. Does the solenoid play a factor in lubricating MDS lifters? Or is it soley for pushing in the lock pin so that the internals can free-float via the spring? And if the solenoid does not lubricate the lifter, then the lifter must be getting normal lubrication the same as the non-MDS lifter. And if/since the MDS lifter while in locked mode (solid state) is operating to full capacity, how then is the lifter lubricated? From the bottom up or the top down?

I'm trying to get you to understand is oil in a normal valve train travels from the block to the tiny little holes on the side of the lifter. As the lifter slides up and down (say my 5.7 Vortec), oil travels inside of the lifter upward, through the pushrods, and out of the tip of the rod and falls back into the head lubricating also the springs and rockers, where it then falls back into the oil pan.

Please explain the entire lubrication process. THEN I think you will see more clearly my point.

Joe




The lifters are all lubricated and the hydraulic lash adjuster component functions the same for both the regular and the MDS lifter.
The additional gallery that feeds the MDS pins applies oil to the circumferential gallery inside the lifter outer body, and pushes the pins in causing the traditional lash adjuster component to float in the outer body and not transfer motion to the rockers.

It's really VERY simple...and the MDS solenoid does not constitute a leak...
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by Shannow
OVERKILL is correct on his understanding of the MDS operation.

Oil pressure applied to the pins allows the lifter assembly to collapse, but it's simply a regular style hydraulic lifter INSIDE the body of another lifter.

The pins remaining stuck in would simply make those cylinders de-activated permanently, and not constitute an oil leak draining the main lifter gallery.

Lock pin doesn't HAVE to line up with the hole as shown in the majority of the pics, as the ledge that it locks on is an entire gallery circumferentially around the inside of the "outer" lifter.


Bingo! We finally got someone to state this. I've been waiting for the others to admit this, and now finally some has. If someone stated this, and I missed it, then my apologies.

The lock pin DOES have the line up with the hole for the lifter to "lock". Otherwise, it is not locked. The purpose of the solenoid is to use oil pressure to push the lock pin inwards, thereby enabling the internal part of the lifter to free-float via a spring. And as you correctly stated, the lifter receives its normal lubrication from the "main gallery" as you call it. However, if the hole in the lifter is left open, where do you think that oil is going to go? This all depends on how the MDS lifter gets its lubrication. Are we to assume that MDS lifters are no lubricated in the same way as the solid lifters? If so, then how do the push rods get oil? Or are MDS lifters lubed from the top down, meaning oil comes from the rods, down to the MDS lifters.

There are 2 overall points I've been trying to get everyone to understand. These are:

1. All lifters must be lubricated at all times, MDS or non-MDS
2. An MDS lifter with a lock-pin that is off center means that it cannot lock. And my theory is the normal lubrication (if any during MDS mode) cannot travel as it would normally go, and thereby potentially cause premature roller needle bearing failure.

In my particular case, the 2 MDS lifters were saturated with oil, but the 2 non-MDS lifters were nearly dry. The only rational reason I could come up with for saturated MDS lifter roller failure is not lack of lubrication, but rather the lifter rotating off center due to faulty keeper design (made of plastic), or the internal part of the lifter is not fully locked, and thus causing a slight free-floating of the lifter during NON-MDS operation. This would result in banging of the roller, and hence damage, and over time, damage camshaft lobe.

If the problem were (as some have suggested on here) faulty lifter design, then there would be lifters dropping out all over the place. While I do believe the lifters are partially to blame, the biggest problem is oil.

Now here's the big secret I've been holding out on. I have already spoken to one engineer on this matter via telephone, from the Johnson company. And he has informed me that the biggest problem with the hemi engine is oil related. Not the type of oil, or frequency of change, but that some of the lifters were not getting enough oil. This led to Chrysler accusations against consumers for "idling the engine too long" since the oil pump reportedly doesn't put out enough volume and flow during high temps and low RPM. So Johnson has designed a non-oiled based lifter (if that's even possible) while also providing a higher grade lifter that requires oil. But this is what the engineer cautioned me when (or if) purchasing his lifters. And I quote, "make sure the lifters are getting oil because for some reason, some of the lifters are not getting oil, and that's what causing the rollers to fail".

No matter how you guys look at it, there is a problem, small (per some on here who believe it to be a rare problem), and the problem must be worked. Fortunately, the Hemi might be coming to its end because neither GM nor Chrysler can satisfy the EPA's fuel efficiency standards. And the MDS and DOD (GM) failed to some extent. So now they appear to want to copy Ford with a twin turbo 6 cylinder...a wise move in my opinion. But that will by no means lead to me buying a future Chrysler product. I'm done with them...forever. My 99 Suburban has done me quite well, having paid more than enough for her service and still going. But my next new truck will likely be a Toyota Tundra, or possibly a Ford ECO-Boost.

Back log on standard Hemi lifters as well as the Hellcat lifters. So I'm likely just going to bite the bullet, try to find a used Hemi engine, install it, and dump that blasted thing and cut my losses. I look forward to Chrysler's eventual collapse and bankruptcy. Hopefully Trump stays in office so he can prevent another bail-out for such a failed industry.

Joe
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 01:59 AM

NO the lock pin does not have to line up with the oil hole...it locks on the circumferential ledge that's machined into the outer body...that also forms a gallery, so the lock pin can be any angle away from the oil hols and still function
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by Shannow
NO the lock pin does not have to line up with the oil hole...it locks on the circumferential ledge that's machined into the outer body...that also forms a gallery, so the lock pin can be any angle away from the oil hols and still function


Interesting. So then, why would the hole even need to be there?
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by JosephA

I disagree. And if I am wrong, then prove it. If the poppet is stuck open, and the solenoid is closed, the lifter still needs lubrication despite the fact that it's not doing much work. Are you assuming that the lifter in MDS mode does not get oil, and that oil only comes from the MDS solenoid?

One thing that helps with troubleshooting is understanding the total process of the operation. So I'd like you to explain the entire process of the lubrication of the MDS lifter. Does the solenoid play a factor in lubricating MDS lifters? Or is it soley for pushing in the lock pin so that the internals can free-float via the spring? And if the solenoid does not lubricate the lifter, then the lifter must be getting normal lubrication the same as the non-MDS lifter. And if/since the MDS lifter while in locked mode (solid state) is operating to full capacity, how then is the lifter lubricated? From the bottom up or the top down?

I'm trying to get you to understand is oil in a normal valve train travels from the block to the tiny little holes on the side of the lifter. As the lifter slides up and down (say my 5.7 Vortec), oil travels inside of the lifter upward, through the pushrods, and out of the tip of the rod and falls back into the head lubricating also the springs and rockers, where it then falls back into the oil pan.

Please explain the entire lubrication process. THEN I think you will see more clearly my point.

Joe




The lifters are all lubricated and the hydraulic lash adjuster component functions the same for both the regular and the MDS lifter.
The additional gallery that feeds the MDS pins applies oil to the circumferential gallery inside the lifter outer body, and pushes the pins in causing the traditional lash adjuster component to float in the outer body and not transfer motion to the rockers.

It's really VERY simple...and the MDS solenoid does not constitute a leak...


I may have been misunderstood. I never claimed the solenoid itself causes the leak. I have suggested that the solenoid supplies oil pressure to unlock the MDS lifter by pushing in the lock pin and unlocking the lifter. But here's my question. Once the lifter is unlocked, how is it left unlocked during economy mode? As the internal springs bob and and down (it has to since the roller is still riding the cam lobe), what is keeping the lock pin from locking during economy mode? That is something I've yet to get answers from on here. I understood this to be the direct cause of oil pressure from the Solenoid. The video image seems to show oil pressure applied to the MDS lifter while in economy mode, which prevents the lock pin from locking as the internals reach maximum height. But when the lifter must become solid again (non-MDS mode), the solenoid cuts off oil pressure and that permits the lock pin to re-engage and lock the lifter.

Is this correct? If not, please correct me.

Joe
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 02:16 AM

Quote
If the lock pin does not lock, that lifter remains in MDS operation, which would be noticeable. Everything else would operate normally. And I've provided numerous examples that show lifter failure happens on non-MDS engines, you claiming that it doesn't at this juncture is utterly ridiculous.


The proof I look for is actually witnessing it, or speaking to someone who has experienced. There is not enough reports of non-MDS engines losing lifters and camshafts. The 2000-2005 Hemi's (to the best of my knowledge) did not suffer lifter and camshaft failures. They instead had valve seat issues. It wasn't until the MDS system came about that lifters began crashing.

Keep it simple guys. I know what many of you are trying to do. You want to create doubt and squash any idea that MDS is a problem.

Here's the simple approach. Did Hemi's lose lifters and cams prior to MDS? No they did not. Did GM's lose lifters and cams prior to MDS? No they did not. Did both start losing lifters and cams after DOD or MDS? Obviously yes.

We do not have to agree the cause of the problem. But ignoring it is not the answer either. And that seems to be what some on here are doing...ignoring the problem, acting as though it doesn't matter, and telling the victims that they are just out of luck. And the reason why I know you guys are wrong is because I've seen this personally 3 times before...on a 1997 Dodge Stratus 2.4, a 2002 Dodge Stratus 2.7, and now a 2012 Dodge Ram. In all three vehicles, they all failed catastrophically before hitting 120,000 miles AFTER routine maintenance and repairs performed by Chrysler. And what was I told by Chrysler? "It's rare that this happens, and we are sorry".

Well guys...that excuse won't work anymore. Thankfully, the Internet has helped a lot of people out there and that explains why Chrysler is struggling financially, and they should. Many of my friends are all saying the same thing, "we are not buying domestic anymore" since the "top three" don't seem to care about the quality they put out, as long as their bank accounts continue to overflow with money.

Don't get me wrong. I love the Dodge Ram truck. But I'm wishing I would have bought the older one with the 5.9 instead of the Hemi. At least that engine (while having had some problems) never lost lifters and camshaft as such an early state.

Joe
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 02:18 AM

And the main fact you all are purposefully ignoring is this.

Since some of you claim that the failed lifters are rare, you still have not explained why both Chrysler service departments and private customers are on hold for lifters, and up to 3 months? Why is their a large demand for such a short supply?

You all already know the answer to this, but you are ignoring it....as expected of course.

At least the engineers and mechanics I've spoken to are honest. And some of you on here are honest. But some of you are obvious schills simply trying to protect Chrysler.

Joe
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 02:25 AM

Quote
1. The above again assumes there is an oil black hole that results in pressure loss. This is not the case as I've explained.
2. Once something happens, whether it is the driver hitting the pedal or encountering a grade to increase load, the solenoid has the power removed from it, which ceases the pressure being applied to the MDS orifices, which then allows the springs behind the lock pins to push the pins back into their grooves, making the lifters single units again. The solenoid does not, in any part of this, "remain open" when MDS is called to be deactivated. It is the cessation of oil pressure caused by the solenoid being deactivated that allows the pin to seat, thus disabling MDS.


Bingo! THIS is what I was looking for.

So then, we agree that the solenoid cuts oil pressure by the ECM to engage (lock) the lifter. So then, oil pressure is sustained to the MDS lifter during economy mode. Now taking the solenoid completely out of the picture here, if the solenoid is off during activation, and the lifter is solid again (locked), this means that the lifter receives its lubrication "normally" through the valve-train galley as the other lifters do. Correct me if I'm wrong please....

That being the case, what happens to the normal oil flow if the lock-pin hole is left open during "locked" operation? You already know what my theory suggests....but for the record, I did not come up with this myself.....This came from an automotive engineer.

Joe
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA


That being the case, what happens to the normal oil flow if the lock-pin hole is left open during "locked" operation? You already know what my theory suggests....but for the record, I did not come up with this myself.....This came from an automotive engineer.

Joe


Nothing. The passages for the conventional oiling don't overlap with the MDS cavity as can be viewed in both cutaway diagrams I posted.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Originally Posted by Shannow
NO the lock pin does not have to line up with the oil hole...it locks on the circumferential ledge that's machined into the outer body...that also forms a gallery, so the lock pin can be any angle away from the oil hols and still function


Interesting. So then, why would the hole even need to be there?


To feed the gallery that supplies the oil to press the lock pins in...

And yes, the MDS solenoids must maintain that oil pressure to keep the cylinders deactivated.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 03:01 AM

The cutaway of the lifter had me scratching my head for a while, so I pondered it as I mowed (where I do my best engineering)...

Then it hit me, the hydraulic lash adjuster NRV is upside down, indicating flow from above downward...and in order for the lock pins to unlock there's a cavity behind it with no pressure.

A little googling, and YES, the hydraulic lash adjusting mechanism is fed from the pushrod.

The regular lifters have the lash adjuster supplied in the regular location...however the lifter body and rollers are lubricated exactly the same way, from the same gallery...can see both details on the second pic lifted from a youtube vid...same gallery and relief for body/roller oiling...just the drilling for the lash adjuster on the non MDS lifter.

So -
Body is lubed like the others.
Roller is lubed like the others
The lash adjuster is fed from the pushrod end on MDS lifters, body end on non MDS lifters.

Attached picture MDS lifter.jpg
Attached picture Lifters two.jpg
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JosephA


That being the case, what happens to the normal oil flow if the lock-pin hole is left open during "locked" operation? You already know what my theory suggests....but for the record, I did not come up with this myself.....This came from an automotive engineer.

Joe


Nothing. The passages for the conventional oiling don't overlap with the MDS cavity as can be viewed in both cutaway diagrams I posted.


Granted. And you might be correct. I'm going to disassemble an MDS lifter as well as a solid lifter to examine the internals. I have just examined the lifters again tonight and I found another common factor from the damaged lifters to the good lifters.

The damaged lifters are all stuck, without any spring action on the pushrod seat. In some or most cases, this will not cause oil flow to stop, but might causing tapping as this happened to my 5.7 Vortec on my Suburban prior to rebuilding the engine.

I do not yet know the cause for the seizure, and I am not yet certain if a stuck lifters would prevent oil flow to the rollers.

I read somewhere that on some of the lifters, the oil flows from the bottom up towards the pushrods, while on other lifters the oil flows from the top down.

I am trying to determine how the lifter rollers receive oil. Does the oil flow from the top of the lifter and down? Does the roller get oil from as passage way in the block?

There has to be a logical reason why the #8 lifter was bone dry and its roller gone/destroyed.

Some on here have suggested the problem to be with a faulty lifter design. But is it a design flaw, or a lack of lubrication flow, or even both?

I know I'm being stubborn guys, but that is how I've always been. I will not repair an engine or any equipment until I first understand the reason for its failure. So bare with me if I seem to pushy and adamant. Some of you on here appear to be engaging with me with great patience and understanding. But there are a few of you on here that are just here to stir up trouble and detract a discussion to flood our examinations with ill intentions...these are often called trolls or schills being paid to detract a debate or discussion by smearing it with emotion and lies. I'll just ignore them from now on.

Finally, I tested the plastic keeper, and I was able to rotate the lifter by a few degrees merely by twisting the lifter in the plastic keeper by hand. A valve spring and camshaft both provide more torque than what my wrist can apply, so there is no doubt now that some of the lifters (as a Chrysler mechanic informed me a few days ago) that the lifters can rotate, some as far as 90 degrees, thereby destroying the roller no matter how much oil it gets.

Summary: All damaged lifters are stuck and the push rod has no spring action. Moreover, the MDS lifters with off-centered lock pins are also stuck. I also plan on testing the MDS lifters by unlocking the pins (pushing them in) in a vice and using a press to see how far I can compress the internals of the lifters, if even at all. It's hard to do this when the roller is not stationary.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by Shannow
The cutaway of the lifter had me scratching my head for a while, so I pondered it as I mowed (where I do my best engineering)...

Then it hit me, the hydraulic lash adjuster NRV is upside down, indicating flow from above downward...and in order for the lock pins to unlock there's a cavity behind it with no pressure.

A little googling, and YES, the hydraulic lash adjusting mechanism is fed from the pushrod.

The regular lifters have the lash adjuster supplied in the regular location...however the lifter body and rollers are lubricated exactly the same way, from the same gallery...can see both details on the second pic lifted from a youtube vid...same gallery and relief for body/roller oiling...just the drilling for the lash adjuster on the non MDS lifter.

So -
Body is lubed like the others.
Roller is lubed like the others
The lash adjuster is fed from the pushrod end on MDS lifters, body end on non MDS lifters.


Thank you! Excellent information. And I like mowing too for my best "engineering" work.
banana Looks like we may have something in common. When I worked F-16's, I used to go home, pull out my John Deere, and ask myself, "Why does the Jet Fuel Starter (JFS) doors keep trying to close during the start process"? Usually by bed time after playing the entire start circuit from start to finish, the answer usually hits me. I have to admit though; electrical problems are not my foretaste. It took me 2 years to figure out why my fuel pump would keep shutting off on hot humid days, yet run smoothly during cool dry days. I knew it had to be an electrical problem based on its characteristics. Despite having tested every fuse box wire, complete fuel system wiring harness, and even the fuel pump itself, I was totally stumped. Until one day while washing my Suburban, something told me to examine the relay. It was black. So I changed it and that solved the problem for a while, until once again my truck would die for no reason while on the highway (scary yes). So I checked the new relay (painted white) and it too was turning black. So I started ohms checking the wiring at the relay circuit and all checked good. I even tested the 10 second delay circuit (when you first rotate the key to the on position), and that didn't lead to a resolution. So I popped open a corona, and I was staring at the relay connections, as well as the prongs for the relay itself (5 pins). And there it was, hidden in the deep clevises of the relay prong contacts of the fuse box. The tiny contact for the relay prongs was bent. So I used a tiny flat tipped screw driver and a needle scribe (a type of needle with a bent tip) and pulled the little contract straighter. And PRESO! Problem solved. But I would not have found that had I not understood the entire operation of the fuel system.

It's the same with this Hemi. I love the Hemi engine. It's fast! It's powerful! And the gas mileage, while poor, does not bother me. But this blasted lifter and camshaft problem has me stumped. I thought I had found the problem after noticing my failed MDS lifters soaked in oil, while the 2 non-MDS lifters were dry and damaged.

It appears I might be wrong, but I'm not yet willing to concede just yet. After all, it still might be an oil supply issue. I have just discovered that my damaged lifters are all stuck, meaning I cannot push down on them. But even so, since the rollers receive oil from the galley, then what is causing the darn things to heat up, chaff, and eventually be destroyed? Could it be an oiling problem? if so, how? Or could it be just crappy lifter design, or possibly a very large bad batch of lifters from a specific plant.

If these lifters were made in China, that might explain things. LOL

Joe
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA


I read somewhere that on some of the lifters, the oil flows from the bottom up towards the pushrods, while on other lifters the oil flows from the top down.

I am trying to determine how the lifter rollers receive oil. Does the oil flow from the top of the lifter and down? Does the roller get oil from as passage way in the block?


If we look back at the oil flow diagram I posted earlier:
[Linked Image]

You can see that there are two main feeds, per bank, both branched into the rocker area. I'm guessing this is what back-feeds the oil down through the pushrods on the MDS cylinders as per what Shannow is describing. This is performed in this manner so that you aren't pressurizing the lower part of the lifter body (where the lifter inside the lifter works on the spring) to get oil up to the hydraulic section of the lifter. Rather, oil comes down through the pushrod, filing that upper section, and then flowing through the passage that is visible in the cutaway pictures into the lower section where it goes out the hole in the bottom of the body onto the roller. You can see these in that picture where I added all the labels to show the different oil passages.

Originally Posted by JosephA
There has to be a logical reason why the #8 lifter was bone dry and its roller gone/destroyed.


For this type of investigation you would have to use two separate approaches, due to the slight difference in how the roller is lubricated:
- if it's an MDS lifter, the roller would be lubricated from the pushrod down, so follow the path and look for a blockage. Is the lifter blocked internally? You should be able to pressurize the pushrod feed hole at the top and have it come out just above the roller. However, if the BODY is dry, that's lubed the same way regardless of MDS or non, so that's an important distinction.
- On the non-MDS lifters the hydraulic pressure feed to the body (the hole in the lower belt of the lifter, where it interfaces the main lifter feed gallery) feeds the roller the same way. So you'd look for a restriction or blockage there on back.


Originally Posted by JosephA
Some on here have suggested the problem to be with a faulty lifter design. But is it a design flaw, or a lack of lubrication flow, or even both?

It could be poor QC on the lifters. But we've got several theories going on here and I'm not sure I'd put that one on the top of my list.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Finally, I tested the plastic keeper, and I was able to rotate the lifter by a few degrees merely by twisting the lifter in the plastic keeper by hand. A valve spring and camshaft both provide more torque than what my wrist can apply, so there is no doubt now that some of the lifters (as a Chrysler mechanic informed me a few days ago) that the lifters can rotate, some as far as 90 degrees, thereby destroying the roller no matter how much oil it gets.

Remember though, that the forces provided by the rest of the valvetrain are on a completely separate plane from what would be required to rotate the lifter. There would be essentially zero rotational force being applied to it, the plastic retainer simply acts as a guide to ensure they are straight. Now, of course, if that guide gets worn or deformed then there is the possibility that through its motions the lifter rotates a bit, skates, stops rolling, and then potentially could lock up or cause a funky wear pattern, since it is no longer straight, rolling along the profile of the lobe.

Originally Posted by JosephA
Summary: All damaged lifters are stuck and the push rod has no spring action. Moreover, the MDS lifters with off-centered lock pins are also stuck. I also plan on testing the MDS lifters by unlocking the pins (pushing them in) in a vice and using a press to see how far I can compress the internals of the lifters, if even at all. It's hard to do this when the roller is not stationary.


It's not uncommon for used lifters to stay "pumped up" and thus difficult to depress, because they are still full of oil. You should be able to blow them out with air.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 11:02 AM

Are we in fact sure that the roller is directly lubricated ?

Can't see where they are lubricated with anything other than splash, spray, and drainback like an SBC/SBF.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Shannow
Are we in fact sure that the roller is directly lubricated ?

Can't see where they are lubricated with anything other than splash, spray, and drainback like an SBC/SBF.



I'm going by this picture:
[Linked Image]

Which shows a hole below the internal springs that would dump a small amount of oil onto the roller after it has flowed through the orifice that runs between the MDS pins (lubricating those bores I assume). You can see these same passages in the diagram you posted.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 01:21 PM

Shannow:

Just found this picture which confirms the hole:
[Linked Image]
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/05/19 09:36 PM

OVERKILL...definitely get that but the regulars non MDS lifters would have to be sealed at the lower end.

Thus my supposition that the rollers are incidentally rather than intentionally lubricated...a lot of valvetrains are.
Posted By: OilUzer

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/06/19 06:20 AM

You all are very knowledgeable !!! I don't understand %90 of what's being discussed shocked2 but I told my hemi friend to check this out.
He asked me if he gets free oil or discounts if he joins since its an oil site ... Not kidding you! lol
Nice to have experts sharing their knowledge and I mean everyone!
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/06/19 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Shannow
OVERKILL...definitely get that but the regulars non MDS lifters would have to be sealed at the lower end.

Thus my supposition that the rollers are incidentally rather than intentionally lubricated...a lot of valvetrains are.


It LOOKS like there is an open "slot" in the non-MDS ones.... I wonder if there is a small orifice that allows some oil to go down that way, while still providing sufficient volume to the HLA section? I guess my thought here is that if Chrysler went to the trouble to make the MDS ones lubricated directly, that they would do the same to the non-MDS ones and this may have something to do with the engine design that prevents sufficient lubrication from being provided via other means like the older SBF and SBC examples shrug Of course the other possibility is that they needed to provide lube to the MDS springs in the lower half of the lifter and somewhere for that oil to go after, hence the hole. But then why the slot for the non-MDS ones?
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/08/19 10:37 PM

Greetings all!

My apologies for not having posted on here these past few days. I've been extremely busy with personal home life chores, as well as conducting tons of research on the route to take with this troubled 2012 Dodge Ram.

I was about to purchase the MDS delete kit from MMX. But something told me not to do it. I examined the lifters supplied with MMX (I think it stands for Mopar Muscle Extreme) and I realized those are the same lifters used on the Hellcat. Yet we've seen a few Hellcats with (or without) the MDS dropping lifters. So I decided not to buy the kit at a wopping cost of about $1,200 bucks, plus an additional $245 for the oil pump and another $122 for the timing chain; all together about $1,500 dollars. I'm glad I was patient in my decision and so I've decided not to buy the MDS delete kit from MMX.

I spoke to Johnson company (gentlemen's name is Joe) who designs lifters, and his company offers 2 types; oil and non-oiled, and both (to-date) have had a zero fail rate. He does not sell them to personal buyers; only to companies. So he put me in contact with a experienced engineer and performance engine builder named Rockford in Michigan (goes by the name Billy). LOL Anyways, this Billy guy knows his crap and was straight forward with me about the problems involved with the 5.7 Hemi's. Some of you might not agree with the information he provided me, but he seems quite trustworthy.

So basically here is what I'll be buying.

1. New design lifters (non-oiled) with partially closed in rollers; oil supplied to the rollers from "splash". He also has the oiled based lifters (with its own internal pathway), but he mentioned that using factory oil will cause a reduction in oil volume (not pressure) unless 5W-30 is used. By the way, I will be using 5W-30 during the winter, and 10W-30 during the summer. I'll explain later.
2. Gentlemen named Rockford will be having a camshaft cut for me to match the lifters I'm buying from Johnson (company).
3. Programmer (MDS Delete) from MMX to also include the gaskets, MDS solenoid plugs, and a new lifter keeper to fit the new lifters (also supplied by MMX)

Thus far, those who have performed the following beef-up of the Hemi saw an increase of about 20% to 30% percent in torque and horsepower, and so-far there have been no lifter failures with some engines higher than 120,000 miles after this repair. Oil recommended is no less than 5W-30, although some have reported using 10W-40...not sure why.

Now about the oil. It appears Chrysler chose to use the lighter weight engine oil in order to allow the MDS system to be more responsive. When the MDS lifters must reactivate (lock), it was explained to me that a thinner viscosity oil (-20) or 5W-20 was needed for quicker response of the lifters. Whether or not this is true I cannot say. But it makes sense to me. You all of course have a right to disagree.

Once I am done with the repairs, I will keep everyone updated. I hope that this will solve the problems.

I'm convinced the pressure was placed on both GM and Chrysler to improve fuel efficiency standards. And with the high demand for V8 engine power (naturally aspirated of course), the displacement on demand (DOD) and the Multi-Displacement System (MDS) were instituted in order to help increase fuel efficiency in order to satisfy EPA fuel efficiency requirements. First of all, who the [censored] put those guys in charge? Since when are companies (or us for that matter) subjected to them? And since when are people (to include companies) responsible for abiding by the mandates of an organization that was never created nor established by "We The People"?

Americans have forgotten that Citizens of the United States are the true sovereign's and not government or any of its agencies. Government was designed to work for the people, and by the people; their job is to serve us; not mandate policies for their own personal and sordid gain. Unfortunately, it appears agencies like the EPA can somehow make it difficult for businesses to operate. Heck I've read that the EPA even has its own army. Geez! LOL

Anyways, that's the update guys. Pulling the camshaft out this weekend now that I finally got the tool needed to remove the Harmonic Balancer...none of the parts stores around here had one.

Joe
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/08/19 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Greetings all!

My apologies for not having posted on here these past few days. I've been extremely busy with personal home life chores, as well as conducting tons of research on the route to take with this troubled 2012 Dodge Ram.

I was about to purchase the MDS delete kit from MMX. But something told me not to do it. I examined the lifters supplied with MMX (I think it stands for Mopar Muscle Extreme) and I realized those are the same lifters used on the Hellcat. Yet we've seen a few Hellcats with (or without) the MDS dropping lifters. So I decided not to buy the kit at a wopping cost of about $1,200 bucks, plus an additional $245 for the oil pump and another $122 for the timing chain; all together about $1,500 dollars. I'm glad I was patient in my decision and so I've decided not to buy the MDS delete kit from MMX.

I spoke to Johnson company (gentlemen's name is Joe) who designs lifters, and his company offers 2 types; oil and non-oiled, and both (to-date) have had a zero fail rate. He does not sell them to personal buyers; only to companies. So he put me in contact with a experienced engineer and performance engine builder named Rockford in Michigan (goes by the name Billy). LOL Anyways, this Billy guy knows his crap and was straight forward with me about the problems involved with the 5.7 Hemi's. Some of you might not agree with the information he provided me, but he seems quite trustworthy.

So basically here is what I'll be buying.

1. New design lifters (non-oiled) with partially closed in rollers; oil supplied to the rollers from "splash". He also has the oiled based lifters (with its own internal pathway), but he mentioned that using factory oil will cause a reduction in oil volume (not pressure) unless 5W-30 is used. By the way, I will be using 5W-30 during the winter, and 10W-30 during the summer. I'll explain later.
2. Gentlemen named Rockford will be having a camshaft cut for me to match the lifters I'm buying from Johnson (company).
3. Programmer (MDS Delete) from MMX to also include the gaskets, MDS solenoid plugs, and a new lifter keeper to fit the new lifters (also supplied by MMX)

Thus far, those who have performed the following beef-up of the Hemi saw an increase of about 20% to 30% percent in torque and horsepower, and so-far there have been no lifter failures with some engines higher than 120,000 miles after this repair. Oil recommended is no less than 5W-30, although some have reported using 10W-40...not sure why.

Now about the oil. It appears Chrysler chose to use the lighter weight engine oil in order to allow the MDS system to be more responsive. When the MDS lifters must reactivate (lock), it was explained to me that a thinner viscosity oil (-20) or 5W-20 was needed for quicker response of the lifters. Whether or not this is true I cannot say. But it makes sense to me. You all of course have a right to disagree.

Once I am done with the repairs, I will keep everyone updated. I hope that this will solve the problems.

I'm convinced the pressure was placed on both GM and Chrysler to improve fuel efficiency standards. And with the high demand for V8 engine power (naturally aspirated of course), the displacement on demand (DOD) and the Multi-Displacement System (MDS) were instituted in order to help increase fuel efficiency in order to satisfy EPA fuel efficiency requirements. First of all, who the [censored] put those guys in charge? Since when are companies (or us for that matter) subjected to them? And since when are people (to include companies) responsible for abiding by the mandates of an organization that was never created nor established by "We The People"?

Americans have forgotten that Citizens of the United States are the true sovereign's and not government or any of its agencies. Government was designed to work for the people, and by the people; their job is to serve us; not mandate policies for their own personal and sordid gain. Unfortunately, it appears agencies like the EPA can somehow make it difficult for businesses to operate. Heck I've read that the EPA even has its own army. Geez! LOL

Anyways, that's the update guys. Pulling the camshaft out this weekend now that I finally got the tool needed to remove the Harmonic Balancer...none of the parts stores around here had one.

Joe


Thanks for the update! Nothing controversial there IMHO. BTW, the SRT (with MDS) spec's 0w-40 and it is more "rumbly" than the RAM, but I attribute that primarily to how close I'm situated to the motor, and how it is(n't) isolated as well as on the truck. The SRT kicking in and out of MDS is noticeable, on the truck you can't tell unless the window is down and you are listening to the engine note.

The xW-20 spec certainly has some basis in CAFE, if it didn't the 6.4L wouldn't spec 0w-40, nor would the truck 6.4L, which barely has any more power than the 5.7.

I'm glad you've chosen to fix the problem, and it sounds like you've gone with a reputable company. Your point about the HellCat lifters is well-taken and in-line with some of the stuff I posted earlier with those lifters not being much different than the regular non-MDS ones. I don't think that's surprising with the 6.1L also sharing the issue.

Did you do any inspection on the oil delivery paths as we discussed?
Posted By: Direct_Rejection

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/08/19 11:37 PM

Great detail, dialogue.
Worthwhile read.

Cheers1
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/09/19 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Greetings all!

My apologies for not having posted on here these past few days.


Great update, and worth the wait...thanks.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/09/19 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JosephA
Greetings all!

My apologies for not having posted on here these past few days. I've been extremely busy with personal home life chores, as well as conducting tons of research on the route to take with this troubled 2012 Dodge Ram.

I was about to purchase the MDS delete kit from MMX. But something told me not to do it. I examined the lifters supplied with MMX (I think it stands for Mopar Muscle Extreme) and I realized those are the same lifters used on the Hellcat. Yet we've seen a few Hellcats with (or without) the MDS dropping lifters. So I decided not to buy the kit at a wopping cost of about $1,200 bucks, plus an additional $245 for the oil pump and another $122 for the timing chain; all together about $1,500 dollars. I'm glad I was patient in my decision and so I've decided not to buy the MDS delete kit from MMX.

I spoke to Johnson company (gentlemen's name is Joe) who designs lifters, and his company offers 2 types; oil and non-oiled, and both (to-date) have had a zero fail rate. He does not sell them to personal buyers; only to companies. So he put me in contact with a experienced engineer and performance engine builder named Rockford in Michigan (goes by the name Billy). LOL Anyways, this Billy guy knows his crap and was straight forward with me about the problems involved with the 5.7 Hemi's. Some of you might not agree with the information he provided me, but he seems quite trustworthy.

So basically here is what I'll be buying.

1. New design lifters (non-oiled) with partially closed in rollers; oil supplied to the rollers from "splash". He also has the oiled based lifters (with its own internal pathway), but he mentioned that using factory oil will cause a reduction in oil volume (not pressure) unless 5W-30 is used. By the way, I will be using 5W-30 during the winter, and 10W-30 during the summer. I'll explain later.
2. Gentlemen named Rockford will be having a camshaft cut for me to match the lifters I'm buying from Johnson (company).
3. Programmer (MDS Delete) from MMX to also include the gaskets, MDS solenoid plugs, and a new lifter keeper to fit the new lifters (also supplied by MMX)

Thus far, those who have performed the following beef-up of the Hemi saw an increase of about 20% to 30% percent in torque and horsepower, and so-far there have been no lifter failures with some engines higher than 120,000 miles after this repair. Oil recommended is no less than 5W-30, although some have reported using 10W-40...not sure why.

Now about the oil. It appears Chrysler chose to use the lighter weight engine oil in order to allow the MDS system to be more responsive. When the MDS lifters must reactivate (lock), it was explained to me that a thinner viscosity oil (-20) or 5W-20 was needed for quicker response of the lifters. Whether or not this is true I cannot say. But it makes sense to me. You all of course have a right to disagree.

Once I am done with the repairs, I will keep everyone updated. I hope that this will solve the problems.

I'm convinced the pressure was placed on both GM and Chrysler to improve fuel efficiency standards. And with the high demand for V8 engine power (naturally aspirated of course), the displacement on demand (DOD) and the Multi-Displacement System (MDS) were instituted in order to help increase fuel efficiency in order to satisfy EPA fuel efficiency requirements. First of all, who the [censored] put those guys in charge? Since when are companies (or us for that matter) subjected to them? And since when are people (to include companies) responsible for abiding by the mandates of an organization that was never created nor established by "We The People"?

Americans have forgotten that Citizens of the United States are the true sovereign's and not government or any of its agencies. Government was designed to work for the people, and by the people; their job is to serve us; not mandate policies for their own personal and sordid gain. Unfortunately, it appears agencies like the EPA can somehow make it difficult for businesses to operate. Heck I've read that the EPA even has its own army. Geez! LOL

Anyways, that's the update guys. Pulling the camshaft out this weekend now that I finally got the tool needed to remove the Harmonic Balancer...none of the parts stores around here had one.

Joe


Thanks for the update! Nothing controversial there IMHO. BTW, the SRT (with MDS) spec's 0w-40 and it is more "rumbly" than the RAM, but I attribute that primarily to how close I'm situated to the motor, and how it is(n't) isolated as well as on the truck. The SRT kicking in and out of MDS is noticeable, on the truck you can't tell unless the window is down and you are listening to the engine note.

The xW-20 spec certainly has some basis in CAFE, if it didn't the 6.4L wouldn't spec 0w-40, nor would the truck 6.4L, which barely has any more power than the 5.7.

I'm glad you've chosen to fix the problem, and it sounds like you've gone with a reputable company. Your point about the HellCat lifters is well-taken and in-line with some of the stuff I posted earlier with those lifters not being much different than the regular non-MDS ones. I don't think that's surprising with the 6.1L also sharing the issue.

Did you do any inspection on the oil delivery paths as we discussed?

[b][/b]

Not yet. I will do that after removing the camshaft. I was going to do it last night but I was pooped, and my new maintenance light burned out after only an hour or two of use. So much for high quality tools from Harbor Freight. LOL

I may end up removing the engine due to concerns from the debris in the engine (roller bearing chunk and all of the needle bearings from #8 intake lifter). Joe (from John Company) recommended I pull the engine and remove the oil plan to do a complete FOD (Foreign Object Damage) check and removal of any debris. I might as well pull the engine since the only thing left to remove is the starter and bell-housing bolts.

I will post pictures of the camshaft once it is out. I expect to see nearly total lobe destruction on lobe for the #8 intake lifter, and scoring/chaffing on cylinders 2,4 and 6 intake lifter lobes. I think all of the bank 1 (cylinders 1,3,5,7) camshaft lobes will be just fine since it's oiling was quite sufficient; not sure why Bank 2 suffered oil volume; might be a clog in the galley.

Joe
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/09/19 12:12 PM

Great to hear and I agree with Joe, you need to perform a full clean-out. Looking forward to the pics thumbsup
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/10/19 04:17 AM

Here you go folks. The damage was worse than I thought. The cam lobe ground on its edges and part of the top was caused from intake lifter #8 (the one missing 1/3 of its roller and all needle bearings). I was able to recover a few needle bearings in the cam galley. I suspect however the rest must be in the oil pan, which I will drop later on this weekend. I scoped the entire cam galley and did not find any FOD laying around, except a few needle bearings which I extracted using a magnet.

The cam lobe ground at its center is Intake lifter lobe #6; the one with the loose and semi-locked roller.

I have a few other pics but those show surface wear and scoring.

Now it's time to order the parts I need. And while I am waiting on the parts, I will drop the pan and hope to God that the rest of the FOD is laying in there. Anyone know by chance how many needle bearings are in a Hemi lifter? I recovered 3 pieces so far.

Joe

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
Posted By: das_peikko

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/10/19 10:14 AM

Your 2009 Dodge needs an MDS delete kit from TSP (Texas Speed and Performance).

[Linked Image]
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/10/19 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by das_peikko
Your 2009 Dodge needs an MDS delete kit from TSP (Texas Speed and Performance).


You read none of the posts in this thread duh

[Linked Image]
Posted By: burla

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/10/19 04:35 PM

Thanks Joe for showing us the bad news. When you are in the fold of the hemi circus, you realize how prevelant this is, I can't even tell you how many hemi cam lobs I have seen like this. You talk to a bunch of randon hemi owners for a period of 5 years, and it just so happens that 10% of them end up this way? You watch the online mechanics like Motor City Mechanic and many others that see Rams and you see how they talk about the hemi cam issues. It is a very prevelant issue in the hemi world, more common then anyone knows. I was watching this one when they brought a ram in for this issue but the guy had all 3 of his bays full of 3 trucks with the same issue. Sometimes they can't get the cam out = total loss. Do you have any idea how many times I have heard cams or lifters on backorder? Why do you suppose that is? I think if every guy that had this happen put the work you put in, we would have a better handle of this thing. Thanks again, I have some guys reading this thread to see if they have anything to add that may be helpful. In the end you and OK likely helped them understand about the issue more then they have to contribute back.
Posted By: das_peikko

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/11/19 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
You read none of the posts in this thread duh


You're right; I didn't read any of the posts and only read half of the opening post. All I needed to read was "MDS" and off to Google Images I went. Are you kidding man? It would take me 5 years just to read your posts in this thread. grin2
Posted By: ofelas

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/11/19 11:22 PM

I like his posts.

He generally makes sense, even if his posts are a bit long winded.

Originally Posted by das_peikko
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
You read none of the posts in this thread duh


You're right; I didn't read any of the posts and only read half of the opening post. All I needed to read was "MDS" and off to Google Images I went. Are you kidding man? It would take me 5 years just to read your posts in this thread. grin2
Posted By: das_peikko

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/12/19 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by ofelas
I like his posts.

He generally makes sense, even if his posts are a bit long winded.


Long winded? He's got enough wind to blow a sail boat around the Earth 4 or 5 times. grin2
Posted By: luna

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/17/19 08:49 PM

I work at a Harley dealership and we also see lifters fail, most often it's the needles. HD changed vendors a few years back and it corresponds with the failures. I might add it occurs more in engines equipped with SE valve springs. Harley has come out with their SE line of lifters with larger diameter rollers and seem to be working well. FWIW
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/18/19 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by burla
Thanks Joe for showing us the bad news. When you are in the fold of the hemi circus, you realize how prevelant this is, I can't even tell you how many hemi cam lobs I have seen like this. You talk to a bunch of randon hemi owners for a period of 5 years, and it just so happens that 10% of them end up this way? You watch the online mechanics like Motor City Mechanic and many others that see Rams and you see how they talk about the hemi cam issues. It is a very prevelant issue in the hemi world, more common then anyone knows. I was watching this one when they brought a ram in for this issue but the guy had all 3 of his bays full of 3 trucks with the same issue. Sometimes they can't get the cam out = total loss. Do you have any idea how many times I have heard cams or lifters on backorder? Why do you suppose that is? I think if every guy that had this happen put the work you put in, we would have a better handle of this thing. Thanks again, I have some guys reading this thread to see if they have anything to add that may be helpful. In the end you and OK likely helped them understand about the issue more then they have to contribute back.

I had this discussion with the A tech that did my airbag recall last week. He had a hemi on the floor with a blown engine, out of a GC. He says there are a lot of cam failures in a lot of different vehicles which includes Chrysler's hemi. Chrysler doesn't make the cam they are outsourced which is why the problem includes other car makers as well. He and a few other techs including people higher up on the food chain believe it might be caused by the ZDDP reduction in oil formulations. He feels a ZDDP add might help, but the CC might not bode well. I found it interesting, listened and didn't comment one way or the other. I'm sure flames are coming.

I did ask about the 3.6L, he did say he sees cam failures in the 3.6L as well but not as many as the hemi.
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/18/19 01:10 PM

It's not like current API, ISLAC, and manufacturers allow more cam wear for certifications.
Posted By: Jstew

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/21/19 05:19 PM

I have enjoyed reading this post and this is, by far, the most interesting one I have found pertaining to root cause. It seems the one weak link that has not been addressed by Johnson, FCA, or anyone, may be the plastic retainers. Is there, or will there be a solution? The fact that Johnson has had a 0 failure rate might not exonerate the retainer, as it does not represent a big enough sample size.

Separately, FCA seems to have “fixed” the problem on 2016 and up - how? I have read only that they are new part number lifters, so this seems to point to the lifters themselves, and not the plastic retainers.

Thoughts?
Posted By: burla

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/21/19 09:07 PM

Not fixed hemi tick 16 and above, a friend who I talk with everyday can testify with a 16 3500 non mds engine at that. Still every week we have new mebers with 17's and 18's with ticking hemi's as well. Spend a month at ram forum, you will have a new appreciation for the issue. Funny how so many members in one spot just happen to develop hemi tick. FCA can't address this with lubrication like it has with other issues like eco deisel and bearings because of CAFE and the lie that mds requires 20 weight oil. So if you have hemi tick or are concerned about the number of cams being wiped out, all you can do is do some research and develop a strategy or sell the thing. Selling it is the only guaruntee.
Posted By: Greg L

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/21/19 09:40 PM

Thanks for posting. No issues yet with my 2011 MDS 5.7 Hemi. No ticking that I can hear, even on a cold start up. 159k miles. Still makes me nervous. Took the readers post above with a grain of salt & added about 7 oz of ZDDP additive, at the risk of fouling the catalytic and 02 sensors.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 05/25/19 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by burla
Thanks Joe for showing us the bad news. When you are in the fold of the hemi circus, you realize how prevelant this is, I can't even tell you how many hemi cam lobs I have seen like this. You talk to a bunch of randon hemi owners for a period of 5 years, and it just so happens that 10% of them end up this way? You watch the online mechanics like Motor City Mechanic and many others that see Rams and you see how they talk about the hemi cam issues. It is a very prevelant issue in the hemi world, more common then anyone knows. I was watching this one when they brought a ram in for this issue but the guy had all 3 of his bays full of 3 trucks with the same issue. Sometimes they can't get the cam out = total loss. Do you have any idea how many times I have heard cams or lifters on backorder? Why do you suppose that is? I think if every guy that had this happen put the work you put in, we would have a better handle of this thing. Thanks again, I have some guys reading this thread to see if they have anything to add that may be helpful. In the end you and OK likely helped them understand about the issue more then they have to contribute back.


Thanks for the complement. And I do hope that someone that you might know with extensive experience in repairing the Hemi can offer some solutions. My wife is getting ticked off at me because I have not yet begun to fix her truck; it's tore down but not yet repaired. She doesn't understand the complexities involved. Sure I could buy stock parts (assuming I could even acquire them in sufficient time) and get the darn thing running again. But all it will do is happen again. Heck my son debated with me on this and asked, "Why not just go to a junk yard and pull parts from another Hemi"? LOL I explained to him that:

1. Junk yards will not usually sell you engine parts (internal that is); they prefer to sell the entire engine
2. Installing a similar MDS style engine would only lead to the same problem

It's my strongest opinion that the primary reason why the exact cause cannot be found on the web is because of the large amount of censorship, misinformation, and disinformation flooding the web by pro-Hemi folks who are either working as Chrysler trolls, or just trolls in general, flooding the net with false failure rates (claiming the number of failures is low based on the total number of produced Hemi's), pointing the finger at lifters, and my favorite one is blaming the driver for long idle times or inadequate oil changes. These excuses to cast blame away from Chrysler engineers is laughable to say the least. Claiming low failure rate compared to a huge back log of stock lifters is contradictory, to say the least. LOL

I've examined this engine inside and out, not that I'm perfect, but I consider myself to be a very good mechanic. I work on all kinds of different machines and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on here. So here is my belief on the cause of the problem.

I believe the primary problem is insufficient oil volume due to the EPA's CAFE standards on fuel efficiency which forced automotive engineers to find every way possible to safe a few micro-gallons of fuel per 10 feet of driving. LOL I'm exaggerating of course. Some claim that the problem happens on non-MDS vehicles, and siting that the reason for lower failures with non-MDS systems has to do with lower ownership of non MDS systems. This to me, while difficult to prove, is untrue. I see more Challengers and Chargers on the road than I do RAM's. Yet most of the vehicles I see at the local dealership having engine lifter/camshaft repairs being done to them are RAMS. The few non-MDS Hemi's that are failing are likely due to stress from owners of these fast machines have a difficult time keeping their food off the gas pedal. I don't know how many Charger owners I see romping their pedals and spinning tires. And logically, anytime you build a high performance engine using low performance parts, you're going to see these kinds of failures. Thus, it is my personal opinion that the low lifter failure rates of the non-MDS Hemi's are from abuse. But for the RAMS, I firmly believe it is directly tied to insufficient lubrication. And the oil starvation is exacerbated by the MDS itself. Oil pressure is required during the entire time the MDS is on operation to keep the MDS lifters from locking. Even though MDS only does this during cruising speeds and at higher RPM's, the current chain-driven oil pumps, in my opinion, are not putting out enough pressure.

The primary culprit with regards to oil starvation is the use of non-weighted engine oil. During hot days and long idle times, coupled with a very weak oil pump, insufficient oil volume exists, thereby leading to over heated needle bearings in what might also be poorly designed lifters. Another factor to consider are the lifters (more specifically MDS lifters) getting stuck and not allowing the push rods to sink into the lifter as they are supposed to. This might be evidenced by the heavy damage seen atop of the valve spring caps denoting heavy wear from the extra forces being applied.

From my engine, the only side that suffered both cam and lifter failure is Bank 2 (passenger side). The drive side denote zero indications of abnormal wear. The differences between Bank 1 and Bank 2 after careful examination were this:

1. All of the lifters appeared to be well lubricated on Bank 1 (driver side).
2. Most lifters on Bank 2 showed abnormal wear patters, i.e. severely worn rollers, rollers worn at a taper pattern, cam lobes being ground down, and one lifter completely destroyed #8).
3. 2 of the MDS and 1 non-MDS lifter were completely frozen, and did not allow the push rods to spring/pump atop of the lifter as they are designed to do. This did not happen on Bank 1.

So based on my findings, to me the problem was caused by lack of lubrication on Bank 2, likely caused by the locked/failed lifters which led to too much oil for the MDS lifters, and not enough oil for the non-MDS lifters. There will be those who do not agree, and that is okay. Whether or not their motives for objection are genuinely true, or simply misguided. But this one fact remains. Chrysler has had several decades of producing horrible unreliable vehicles even as far back as the 1980's. This is why many of us with lesser incomes might be inclined to buy a Dodge vehicle; especially poverty stricken people with poor credit. So there really is no incentive for Chrysler to build a high quality vehicle. And as I've stated before, I've owned a total of 4 Dodge vehicles, and 3 of the 4 all crapped out below or slightly above 100K miles, despite religious upkeep and routine maintenance. It's gotten to the point now that no matter how much you baby your Dodge, the [censored] thing is going to break on you, whether you like it or not. Some do last longer than 300K; I've seen it. But most do not seem to make it. Stratus sucks, Neon's were horrible, Intrepids catching fire, Durango's killing occupants from failed ball joints while traveling at highway speeds, 2.7 liter pump failures destroying the chain and the coolant systems, 2.0 and 2.4 liters losing head gaskets and oil, 3.1 liters also losing oil, and now Hemi's losing valve seats (earlier Hemi's) and modern Hemi's losing lifters and cams.

While other vehicle manufacturers have had their share of problems, NONE and I do mean NONE can compare to the large history of failures Chrysler continues to have. Thus in my strongest opinion, and anyone can take this to the bank, Chrysler needs to close down and let them fade away into history. Ford has had their fair share of problems, but they seem to have bounced back with the eco-boost and the fusion. GM has held strong for a while, until they had initial problems with the LS engine designs (piston slap), and now they too are facing problems with DoD (Displacement on Demand). Hmmmm? Both GM and Chrysler having issues with their cylinder on demand technology...Now if that doesn't leave everyone at the logical conclusion as to the cause of the problem, I do not know what else will.

FACT: Displacement on Demand or MDS (what ever you want to call it) is a complete failure. It failed in the 1920's with the early model Ford's; it failed in the 1980's when cadillac tried it, and now it is failing again.

Sorry for the long post. I'm frustrated to say the least, and Chrysler has a huge FU headed their way. LOL

Joe

Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 06/02/19 01:44 AM

Update:

The MDS Delete kit has been ordered. Only time will tell.

On a side note, GM recognizes the same issue, and has released this information. It is clear that GM seems to care about their customers and product owners. I wonder when Chrysler is going to step up and do the same. As suspected, GM also believes their AFM lifter failures are a result of oil pressure issues and likely improper AFM deactivation/reactivation timing. Here is their release:

TECHNICAL BULLETINwww.melling.comMelling Engine Parts, P.O. Box 1188, Jackson, MI 49210 GM LS AFM Deactivation LifterIssuesWehave noticed an increase in the issues surrounding the replacement of deactivation lifters in GM LS engines with Active Fuel Management or AFM. After installing new lifters the original issuemay not have been corrected. Most lifters returned for analysis are found to be good. We have found that most lifter faultsare caused by oil pressure issues, or control issues.The AFM activation and deactivation is controlled by the Valve Lifter Oil Manifold or VLOM. The VLOM consists of 4 electronically operated solenoids and is bolted to the top of the engine block beneath the intake manifold assembly. Its job is to direct the flow of pressurized engine oil to the active fuel management intake and exhaust valve lifters. VLOM applies pressurized oil to the AFM lifters when cylinder deactivation is requested, and shuts off that supply of oil to reactivate those cylinders. Cylinder activation and deactivation are both supposed to occur on the base circle of the cam lobe, making the transition from four to eight cylinder mode unnoticeable to the driver. To control contamination a small replaceable oil filter is located in the VLOM inletoil passageway. The AFM oil pressure relief valve regulates the oil supplied to the VLOM and is located in the oil pan near the oil filter housing. The AFM system has an operating range from 27 PSI to 66 PSI of oil pressure. At higher engine speeds the high side of this operating range is controlled by the AFM oilpressure relief valve. At low enginespeeds the low side of the operating range will depend on the engines ability to produce oil pressureusing the flow of oil from the oil pump.The AFM lifter bores in these engines have a spec of .843-.844, and the deactivation lifters require 22 PSI of pressure to release the locking pins. Taking these two things into consideration a lifter bore that is even slightly worn could bleed off enough oil pressure to prevent the lifter from unlocking.In addition it has been reported that it is common to find the VLOM oil filter plugged and needing replacement on high mileage engineswith miss-fire fault codes. Melling has received AFM DEAC lifters back for warranty claims where the lifter has been stuck compressed, this condition can be caused by the VLOM commanding activation or deactivation at the wrong point in the cam’s rotation, either in the ramp, or at the lobe peak.Any time an engine has failed AFM lifters the lifter guides must be replaced, the lifter bores must be measured, and the VLOM must also be tested for proper operation, or replaced.In addition the VLOM oil filter must be replaced as well.

What say you Chrysler? Still blaming the lifter failures on bad batch's or customer neglect?

Joe
Posted By: tiger862

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 06/02/19 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by tiger862
I looked at these lifters you put and I can guarantee that a new set of lifters will not fix. The lifter bore is out of spec. I see lifter wear at bore so lifter is moving and binding. Your oil loss theory is interesting but I would have to remove engine and have bore fixed as well as cam journal.

Are you doing this before new lifters are installed?
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 06/02/19 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by tiger862
Originally Posted by tiger862
I looked at these lifters you put and I can guarantee that a new set of lifters will not fix. The lifter bore is out of spec. I see lifter wear at bore so lifter is moving and binding. Your oil loss theory is interesting but I would have to remove engine and have bore fixed as well as cam journal.

Are you doing this before new lifters are installed?

I can’t wait for your reply.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 06/02/19 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by JosephA
Update:

The MDS Delete kit has been ordered. Only time will tell.

On a side note, GM recognizes the same issue, and has released this information. It is clear that GM seems to care about their customers and product owners. I wonder when Chrysler is going to step up and do the same. As suspected, GM also believes their AFM lifter failures are a result of oil pressure issues and likely improper AFM deactivation/reactivation timing. Here is their release:

TECHNICAL BULLETINwww.melling.comMelling Engine Parts, P.O. Box 1188, Jackson, MI 49210 GM LS AFM Deactivation LifterIssuesWehave noticed an increase in the issues surrounding the replacement of deactivation lifters in GM LS engines with Active Fuel Management or AFM. After installing new lifters the original issuemay not have been corrected. Most lifters returned for analysis are found to be good. We have found that most lifter faultsare caused by oil pressure issues, or control issues.The AFM activation and deactivation is controlled by the Valve Lifter Oil Manifold or VLOM. The VLOM consists of 4 electronically operated solenoids and is bolted to the top of the engine block beneath the intake manifold assembly. Its job is to direct the flow of pressurized engine oil to the active fuel management intake and exhaust valve lifters. VLOM applies pressurized oil to the AFM lifters when cylinder deactivation is requested, and shuts off that supply of oil to reactivate those cylinders. Cylinder activation and deactivation are both supposed to occur on the base circle of the cam lobe, making the transition from four to eight cylinder mode unnoticeable to the driver. To control contamination a small replaceable oil filter is located in the VLOM inletoil passageway. The AFM oil pressure relief valve regulates the oil supplied to the VLOM and is located in the oil pan near the oil filter housing. The AFM system has an operating range from 27 PSI to 66 PSI of oil pressure. At higher engine speeds the high side of this operating range is controlled by the AFM oilpressure relief valve. At low enginespeeds the low side of the operating range will depend on the engines ability to produce oil pressureusing the flow of oil from the oil pump.The AFM lifter bores in these engines have a spec of .843-.844, and the deactivation lifters require 22 PSI of pressure to release the locking pins. Taking these two things into consideration a lifter bore that is even slightly worn could bleed off enough oil pressure to prevent the lifter from unlocking.In addition it has been reported that it is common to find the VLOM oil filter plugged and needing replacement on high mileage engineswith miss-fire fault codes. Melling has received AFM DEAC lifters back for warranty claims where the lifter has been stuck compressed, this condition can be caused by the VLOM commanding activation or deactivation at the wrong point in the cam’s rotation, either in the ramp, or at the lobe peak.Any time an engine has failed AFM lifters the lifter guides must be replaced, the lifter bores must be measured, and the VLOM must also be tested for proper operation, or replaced.In addition the VLOM oil filter must be replaced as well.

What say you Chrysler? Still blaming the lifter failures on bad batch's or customer neglect?

Joe


That quote is from Melling, not GM, FWIW:
https://www.melling.com/wp-content/...-Deactivation-Lifter-Issues-3.1.18-1.pdf

Seems consistent with what we are discussing here for the most part, though I'm not sure if Chrysler uses a screen to block contamination from the MDS passages. If there is one, you'll likely discover it during your repair. I could certainly see the activation of the system while on the ramp could be problematic, though on the Chrysler setup, with the location of the orifice that feeds the MDS port, I cannot see it engaging with any significant lift as:
1. The pin should not be able to displace with significant pressure on it, so it would have to come back to, or close to, base circle before there was low enough pressure
2. The orifice needs to align with the cut-out in the lifter body where the MDS pressure port is located, which should be blocked by the lower portion of the lifter body upon any significant lift.

The oil pressure issue discussed in the linked article isn't about insufficient lifter lubrication, which was the general concern in this thread, it was insufficient engine oil pressure to cause the MDS lifters to operate properly, which could be due to:
a. Worn lifter bores, bleeding off too much pressure so the pin stays locked
b. Worn engine, resulting in insufficient global pressure so the pin stays locked
c. Plugged or partially plugged AFM screen preventing sufficient pressure from reaching the lifters, so the pin stays locked

I think the TSB is generally good advice though.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 06/07/19 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JosephA
Update:

The MDS Delete kit has been ordered. Only time will tell.

On a side note, GM recognizes the same issue, and has released this information. It is clear that GM seems to care about their customers and product owners. I wonder when Chrysler is going to step up and do the same. As suspected, GM also believes their AFM lifter failures are a result of oil pressure issues and likely improper AFM deactivation/reactivation timing. Here is their release:

TECHNICAL BULLETINwww.melling.comMelling Engine Parts, P.O. Box 1188, Jackson, MI 49210 GM LS AFM Deactivation LifterIssuesWehave noticed an increase in the issues surrounding the replacement of deactivation lifters in GM LS engines with Active Fuel Management or AFM. After installing new lifters the original issuemay not have been corrected. Most lifters returned for analysis are found to be good. We have found that most lifter faultsare caused by oil pressure issues, or control issues.The AFM activation and deactivation is controlled by the Valve Lifter Oil Manifold or VLOM. The VLOM consists of 4 electronically operated solenoids and is bolted to the top of the engine block beneath the intake manifold assembly. Its job is to direct the flow of pressurized engine oil to the active fuel management intake and exhaust valve lifters. VLOM applies pressurized oil to the AFM lifters when cylinder deactivation is requested, and shuts off that supply of oil to reactivate those cylinders. Cylinder activation and deactivation are both supposed to occur on the base circle of the cam lobe, making the transition from four to eight cylinder mode unnoticeable to the driver. To control contamination a small replaceable oil filter is located in the VLOM inletoil passageway. The AFM oil pressure relief valve regulates the oil supplied to the VLOM and is located in the oil pan near the oil filter housing. The AFM system has an operating range from 27 PSI to 66 PSI of oil pressure. At higher engine speeds the high side of this operating range is controlled by the AFM oilpressure relief valve. At low enginespeeds the low side of the operating range will depend on the engines ability to produce oil pressureusing the flow of oil from the oil pump.The AFM lifter bores in these engines have a spec of .843-.844, and the deactivation lifters require 22 PSI of pressure to release the locking pins. Taking these two things into consideration a lifter bore that is even slightly worn could bleed off enough oil pressure to prevent the lifter from unlocking.In addition it has been reported that it is common to find the VLOM oil filter plugged and needing replacement on high mileage engineswith miss-fire fault codes. Melling has received AFM DEAC lifters back for warranty claims where the lifter has been stuck compressed, this condition can be caused by the VLOM commanding activation or deactivation at the wrong point in the cam’s rotation, either in the ramp, or at the lobe peak.Any time an engine has failed AFM lifters the lifter guides must be replaced, the lifter bores must be measured, and the VLOM must also be tested for proper operation, or replaced.In addition the VLOM oil filter must be replaced as well.

What say you Chrysler? Still blaming the lifter failures on bad batch's or customer neglect?

Joe


That quote is from Melling, not GM, FWIW:
https://www.melling.com/wp-content/...-Deactivation-Lifter-Issues-3.1.18-1.pdf

Seems consistent with what we are discussing here for the most part, though I'm not sure if Chrysler uses a screen to block contamination from the MDS passages. If there is one, you'll likely discover it during your repair. I could certainly see the activation of the system while on the ramp could be problematic, though on the Chrysler setup, with the location of the orifice that feeds the MDS port, I cannot see it engaging with any significant lift as:
1. The pin should not be able to displace with significant pressure on it, so it would have to come back to, or close to, base circle before there was low enough pressure
2. The orifice needs to align with the cut-out in the lifter body where the MDS pressure port is located, which should be blocked by the lower portion of the lifter body upon any significant lift.

The oil pressure issue discussed in the linked article isn't about insufficient lifter lubrication, which was the general concern in this thread, it was insufficient engine oil pressure to cause the MDS lifters to operate properly, which could be due to:
a. Worn lifter bores, bleeding off too much pressure so the pin stays locked
b. Worn engine, resulting in insufficient global pressure so the pin stays locked
c. Plugged or partially plugged AFM screen preventing sufficient pressure from reaching the lifters, so the pin stays locked

I think the TSB is generally good advice though.


No matter how you look at it, it all comes down to simply thought. Did Hemi engines suffer catastrophic lifter failure prior to MDS? As I've stated before, the answer is no. They have valve seat issues which was easily corrected with proper machining.

In the same way, did GM have lifter failure prior to the AFM system? The answer is no; the LS engines are a fantastic design despite a short history of initial piston slap issues due to excessive gaping between the rings and the cylinder bore. Both the early Hemi engines and the LS engines were great products. But as soon as both decided to again try cylinder deactivation technology, we are again seeing lifter destruction. Catalack tried this in the 1980's and suffered engine problems then.

The solution is simple. Delete MDS and the problem is solved. While there may have been a few Hellcat engines suffering lifter failure, the problem in my opinion is incorrect lubrication for an engine with such high horse power. You can't build a high performance engine using non-weighted engine oil. Could you imagine what would happen to dragsters if they ran their engines on 00-20 non-weighted oil? BOOOOM!

The problem is oil...contributing to early failure of weak design lifters, which in turn wipes out the cam lobes.

Dump MDS and AFM, go back to standard/traditional engine oil, and the problem is solved. Who gives a crap about the EPA's CAFE standards. I didn't buy the truck to save gas; I bought it do hall trailers and horses. And you can't do that driving a 6 cylinder Japanese engine.

The lifter bore is not the cause of the issue or all of them would be failing. It is possible the cam journals might have been damaged, but I believe I caught the problem early enough so as to avoid major engine damage.

I installed the cam and lifters 2 days ago. But I freaking forgot to drill out the two broken bolts on the driver side head. So now I have to remove the head again to drill out the stuck bolts and tap-die the hole.

The ultimate goal of course is to fix the truck, and dump it; let it become someone else's problem. Rest assured, I will never buy another Dodge product again....NEVER. I've been hosed by that creepy company twice before despite religious oil changes and proper maintenance. You just can't win owning a Dodge. I'm sticking with the more dependable Toyota's and Honda's; at least they honor their warranty unlike Chrysler.

Joe
Posted By: tiger862

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 06/08/19 02:23 AM

So you have 114k miles and this is Dodge's problem? You had it in at 90k then you stated they did something shady to get you pass warranty. WOW is all I have to say. I don't know any dealer that would repair one that is out of warranty by 14k miles unless there was a recall. When you had 104k you decided not to carry it in since it had just been in and noise came back but to drive until complete failure at 114k. Maybe just maybe you could have it gotten it covered if you brought it back telling them noise is still there then let them diagnose. If they were to state your sol call corporation let them know and see if they could help. You will never know. Now you are going to dump it on someone else. I hope you tell them you modified the truck so they know program that computer you are running as well as parts needed for maintenance or repairs when something breaks.
Posted By: JosephA

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 06/10/19 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by tiger862
So you have 114k miles and this is Dodge's problem? You had it in at 90k then you stated they did something shady to get you pass warranty. WOW is all I have to say. I don't know any dealer that would repair one that is out of warranty by 14k miles unless there was a recall. When you had 104k you decided not to carry it in since it had just been in and noise came back but to drive until complete failure at 114k. Maybe just maybe you could have it gotten it covered if you brought it back telling them noise is still there then let them diagnose. If they were to state your sol call corporation let them know and see if they could help. You will never know. Now you are going to dump it on someone else. I hope you tell them you modified the truck so they know program that computer you are running as well as parts needed for maintenance or repairs when something breaks.


It was Dodge's problem for not fixing the problem when it was brought to them at 94,000 miles. I don't know what they did, but I have a friend who works for Toyota in Atlanta, and he deals with warranty departments all of the time. Now this is just a suggestion from his part, but his speculation made sense to me. He suspects that the warranty department refused to cover the needed repairs on my truck because the local Chrysler Dealership obviously failed to service vehicles with the recommended oil. In my case, 0-20 was supposed to be used, but they are using 5W-20 bulk oil; a rather cheap grade of oil. So he suspects the warranty department refused to cover it, and instead told the dealership that they would be the responsible party since they were the likely cause of premature failure. While this cannot be proven by me nor my buddy in Atlanta, what he stated makes sense considering the local dealership in my town lost their five-star rating for corruption and unethical sales tactics. They have the worst service department in my town, and likely in my State.

Getting back to my circumstance, the truck should have been repaired correctly while it was under warranty. It apparently wasn't. And for some ungodly reason, I was charged OUT OF POCKET $988 bucks for 16 spark plugs and a fuel system flush. Yet their own advertisement board displayed a full tuneup for just over $200 bucks. So why was I charged so much, especially considering the fact that the problem returned close to 10,000 miles later, only this time it was nearly catastrophic? My buddy suggested that they lied to be about the tuneup in order to hide the lifter problem from me (and likely others whom also experienced the same problem as I) and needed to cover the cost of parts (lifter(s), gaskets, and labor to pay the mechanic). Now I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, but as I've stated, it all makes sense. There's no way a tuneup and fuel flush should cost nearly $1,000 bucks.

And I am pretty certain that my upgrade will last a [censored] of a lot longer than the stock repair. I've installed a custom cam with a diablosport tune, and she's up and running. I started her up and she instantly prrrr'd like a kitten. And no hemi tick; no knocking; no clattering; just as quiet as an engine should be. Time will tell of course, but we've decided to keep it now that I've gained a lot more knowledge of this engine; a rather simple engine to work on I might add. In fact, I am thinking of searching for a RAM for myself (this one belongs to my wife). I could easily find someone who might be wanting to dump their hemi-tick RAM; I'll buy it cheap, upgrade the engine with a nice tune, and enjoy a nice powerful truck. We use it for towing horse trailers so we needed the power. I'd much prefer a diesel but I'm waiting on Toyota to finally begin selling their new line of trucks with the Cummin's diesel engine. I'm told it should be out sometime around or after 2020. Here's to hoping.

And for the record, I am using 5W-30 Full Synthetic Mobile 1 engine oil and my Hemi loves it. I also performed an idle test with the passenger side (bank 2) valve cover off, and there is plenty of oil flowing atop of the head. So I know the valve train is getting plenty of good quality lubrication. After all, with a 400+ HP engine, using a weighted engine oil is a must. The idiot(s) that decided to use 00-20 engine oil on a high output engine should be hung, in my personal opinion. That was a very stupid decision, EPA standards notwithstanding. If people want to save money on fuel, then buy a Toyota, Honda, or even a Ford Fusion; they make some really great cars. I can't say that for Chrysler, and lately even GM. Seems like GM is starting to slip some.

She's running great guys. Right now I have her tuned for economy. But when ever we have to pull, she'll get re-tuned for heavy towing. I'm certain she will last a bit longer than the crap the stealership pulled on me. Let the record show that I've lost 2 prior Dodge's from that stealership after their poor maintenance. A 1997 Dodge Stratus that seized months after a head gasket failure/replacement; and a 2002 Dodge Stratus R/T 8 months after they replaced the water pump, which failed again and destroyed the timing chain.

Finally, if I did sell the truck, unlike Chrysler and their service reps, I would be honest and tell them everything that was done to the truck. [censored] they'd probably thank me for it. I've got 3 friends all wanting me to repair there's now. And I'm all for it. It makes no sense for the stealership's to be charging $5,000 to $7,000 bucks for a silly camshaft and lifter replacement. I could do it in 2 days or less if I had the parts. Tt took me 2 months to get mine fixed due to awaiting parts and conducting thorough research. I'm totally convinced the problem is directly/mostly related to MDS operation (as with GM SUV's and Trucks), and insufficient lubrication for a hard-working engine. 0-20 or 5W-20 are both insufficient. To anyone else out there who might be reading this post and would like to know which oil to use, don't waste your money on Redline..not worth the cost for a mere name. Use 5W-30 or 5W-40 Mobile 1 Full Synthetic oil. This only applies to those who wisely deleted their MDS system with a non-MDS cam and lifters, as well as a tune. If you Hemi still has the MDS, you can deactivate it with a tuner. But you are better off dumping the MDS all together and enjoying the full potential of an 8 cylinder Hemi. Besides, MDS doesn't save you enough money since it's maintenance/repair cost exceeds (by a large amount) the minute fuel savings.

Joe
Posted By: Whitestar

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 09/11/19 07:10 PM

Joe, did your truck experience the lifter clatter on cold startups like mine?
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 09/11/19 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Whitestar
Joe, did your truck experience the lifter clatter on cold startups like mine?

I hear a lot of cars from various brands making the same noises on a cold start. Discouraging but not uncommon.
Posted By: GumbyJarvis

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 09/11/19 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by Whitestar
Joe, did your truck experience the lifter clatter on cold startups like mine?

I hear a lot of cars from various brands making the same noises on a cold start. Discouraging but not uncommon.


I've never had that issue except once. I was parked at a slope where the passenger side was higher than the drivers side.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 09/11/19 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by GumbyJarvis

I've never had that issue except once. I was parked at a slope where the passenger side was higher than the drivers side.

Interesting observation. Like I said I've heard quite a few newer vehicles that make that same noise. I'll hear it not quite as pronounced in my 3.6L Pentastar, but it would have to be sitting a few weeks w/o being driven in order to make that noise. Then the noise will last 1-2 seconds at most.

The lifters do leak down, which they claim causes the noise and it is supposed to be "normal." I guess "normal" can mean a lot of things.
Posted By: tiger862

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 09/12/19 01:15 AM

The main thing I have seen on Hemi is the ones who use conventional oil and do regular oil changes according to severe duty don't have problems. The main culprit seems to be Synthetic oil changes according to OLM. Can't say it's the oil or extended oil changes but if anything like the Chevy small block from the ninety's the spring pressure was to low and allowed the roller to slide instead of roll causing cam damage and bearings in lifters to fail. Just an opinion
Posted By: Skippy722

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 09/12/19 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by tiger862
The main thing I have seen on Hemi is the ones who use conventional oil and do regular oil changes according to severe duty don't have problems. The main culprit seems to be Synthetic oil changes according to OLM. Can't say it's the oil or extended oil changes but if anything like the Chevy small block from the ninety's the spring pressure was to low and allowed the roller to slide instead of roll causing cam damage and bearings in lifters to fail. Just an opinion


I’ve seen plenty eat a lifter running conventional with 4,000-5,000 mile OCI’s done at the dealership.
Posted By: GumbyJarvis

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 09/12/19 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by GumbyJarvis

I've never had that issue except once. I was parked at a slope where the passenger side was higher than the drivers side.

Interesting observation. Like I said I've heard quite a few newer vehicles that make that same noise. I'll hear it not quite as pronounced in my 3.6L Pentastar, but it would have to be sitting a few weeks w/o being driven in order to make that noise. Then the noise will last 1-2 seconds at most.

The lifters do leak down, which they claim causes the noise and it is supposed to be "normal." I guess "normal" can mean a lot of things.


Yup, parked at the streetside of my work, which is at an incline. 13 hours parked, cold start, about 6-8 seconds of rattle then back to normal.

This was while running Conventional Formula Shell 5w20 and a CQ Red. I havent had that issue since, but I no longer park there anymore, maybe I will and see if it's still an issue with the current fill, or whatnot. shrug
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Ram Hemi hydraulic lifter failure...oil related? - 09/12/19 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by GumbyJarvis
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by GumbyJarvis

I've never had that issue except once. I was parked at a slope where the passenger side was higher than the drivers side.

Interesting observation. Like I said I've heard quite a few newer vehicles that make that same noise. I'll hear it not quite as pronounced in my 3.6L Pentastar, but it would have to be sitting a few weeks w/o being driven in order to make that noise. Then the noise will last 1-2 seconds at most.

The lifters do leak down, which they claim causes the noise and it is supposed to be "normal." I guess "normal" can mean a lot of things.


Yup, parked at the streetside of my work, which is at an incline. 13 hours parked, cold start, about 6-8 seconds of rattle then back to normal.

This was while running Conventional Formula Shell 5w20 and a CQ Red. I havent had that issue since, but I no longer park there anymore, maybe I will and see if it's still an issue with the current fill, or whatnot. shrug

I've mentioned this a few times here. I have a friend who is an A-tech at a Jeep dealership. He is an excellent tech. He has handled the cam lifter failures and has worked with Sr. techs Chrysler sends out to the dealerships to troubleshoot issues. Long story short these cam lifter problems are not unique to Chrysler products, and contrary to what many on Bitog believe they feel higher ZDDP oils or tweaking the oil with ZDDP can help, yes even in engines like yours and the 3.6. They also feel moving up a grade to a 5W30 is a good idea too. The problem is they can't openly suggest using a ZDDP additive, or going against the owner's manual. I have discussed this on numerous occasions with a few highly respected members here, they agree. Having said that if a person has defective parts, nothing is going to help. Good luck!!
© 2019 Bob Is The Oil Guy