[punisher69]

If it was IN the design, thereby making it a flawed design, every engine made would have the problem. They do not.

What is so hard to comprehend about the amount of failures vs. the amount of untroubled engines is so difficult? There are literally millions more untroubled engines than there are failures.

There is not enough complete data to determine the cause, period. Anything we do is conjecture at this point.


It could be something as simple as one dull/ damaged bit on one machine. Someone could have been playing grab ass instead of actually DOING their QC checks. A post machine rinsing station not pumping enough fluid to properly rinse out the shavings.

I know of a guy (not me BTW) that worked for Chevy on the cam QC line. Dude fell asleep for his whole shift. Hundreds of cams went by him and not a single one was checked for hours. Not long after, there was a sht storm of Chevy small block cam failures and some here might be old enough to remember that. Coincidence? No one ever proved it, but the timing was uncanny.

There are so many things it COULD be, but a design flaw or a flaw in the design isn't one of them.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[Renfrick1]

So let me ask then, how many have failed ? Does anyone know? Or are you just speculating that it’s a fraction of what they made. What’s the cutoff number ? 20% before you consider it a flaw in design
Personally I think it’s a higher number then you think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[punisher69]

So let me ask then, how many have failed ? Does anyone know? Or are you just speculating that it's a fraction of what they made. What's the cutoff number ? 20% before you consider it a flaw in design
Personally I think it's a higher number then you think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obviously it's a fraction of what they made.

What part of, "If it was a design flaw, they would all have the issue" don't you get?

You also (obviously) missed the 3rd paragraph of my post. We do not have enough information. The amount of failures is part of that information.

The internet is notorious for blowing things out of proportion. Here, we have a very small (miniscule) number of owners. When 5 people out of 100 have a problem, it seems much more of a problem than when say 100 out of 10,000 in the real world have it.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[Hemissary]

Well I'm no dummy. Ive been on here since 09 and have seen so many cam and lifter gone bad threads, valve seat dropped topics I could puke. If you guys think there's nothing wrong with the design of our hemis you can stay hidden behind that rock.
Maddog is right and thank you for your fight on this
Simon you've brought a lot of knowledge to the board but I'll bet in real life your an engineer,or have some type of engineer back ground. Your very smart. Am I right??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You would do well to actually read the thread. I've been on here longer than you, I haven't seen "all these lifter threads" you claim to have read on here. So post them.

When you DO read this thread, you'll likely come to the same conclusions the rest of us did. The OP:
- Is about to install a fourth(!) set of lifters / cam - into the same block
- Bullsh!tted through his teeth about "millions of lifter failures"
- Then retracted the statement - but went on the bullsh!t run again and again
- Refused(!) to listen and acknowledge any of our contributions
- When bullsh!t failed he resorted to insults and marginalizing not just us - but every Member on this Forum.

As to my learned background; are you very smart? WTF does this have to do with the price of tea? Clearly - your goal in this thread is to marginalize.

Instead, like most on here do, f'n read what I write and use critical thought, critical reasoning and - if needed - confer with others who actually(!) know their sh!t. It should go without saying; if someone can show where I'm in error / wrong, I'll be the first person to acknowledge and - if needed - apologize.

So...where am I wrong in this thread please. You better have real facts...not innuendo as we kept reading over and over in this thread.

 

[Hemissary]

Argument stems from the cause. Everyone knows something is wrong. But you have to everything agree that matches the failure. If there are three data points, and your argument is only supported by one does not mean it is the final say so. That is my whole beef. There is a lot of missing information that we will never get a hold of that could help. I.E. Say wanted to explore casting defect in a specific year range of block production...You would need numbers off couple hundred failed lifter blocks to get a control group to start a statistical fact on it. Same with Lifter being blamed. You would need to be be able to trace the supplier, and use of them through out the several vehicles they were used in.

I do not feel I ever said what is causing it, just argued against what others say cause it without having the actual data across the board to properly prove it.

And if you think new engines rely so heavily on "crank splash Lubrication" then you def have been hiding behind a rock for some time. possibly since the 1940s ish.

And coming on to the thread, offering nothing at all towards a discussion / argument besides calling some "know it alls", and acting like your horse is that much higher, then your def no better than at other garden variety troll. In fact by doing so you are belittling, and marginalizing others yourself. Ain't that funny?

Regardless of my disagreement with some folks here I would rather have them here than some one who does not offer nothing towards the actual topic vs just their personal judgment of the parties involved.

I don't recall you pointing a / any smoking gun either. I know I didn't. We've touched on potential root causes (in no particular order):
- Poor machining (passage registering); namely the passageways for either top-down or side oil supply
- Passageway blockages (poor QC)
- Materials issue; given just how many there are, the individual roller integrity (proper base materials, heat treat / quench processes)

Gen 3 Hemi Camshaft Failure Mystery Explained! - YouTube
Here's a video there's a design flaw Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Old school thinking being applied to modern engine design. Have you looked at a / any Hemi casting - specifically access to the voids (or lack thereof) between the crank and the camshaft?? Do that - get back to us.

Yeah I guess your right
There's nothing wrong with the design
Your right.
Is that what you wanna hear Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flippant - unproductive.

Keep going back to design issues. How about trying to connect some dots your self? Perhaps if you can not come up with logical ideas that is not based on youtube clickbait monetized channels then you should have never posted in this thread. Let em question this. If it were a 100% design issue. Then why hasn't every single hemi failed in the same manner withing same miles? Of all the million or so hemis produced, why is the general failure rate statistically low (failed vs in service)

If splash lubrication is so important, then why is my 3.3 designed by dodge, have much more of it's cam covered by the casting than the hemi generally last 200+ miles even with rough ownership? Would you like photos of this? I have a bare block?

Hear hear :^)

Your right it's not a design flaw. Everyone drives there cars the same. So it can't be. Based on the amount of known cases that we read on the forums and the true amount of failures which we actually don't no. Your right it's not a design flaw.
Your right. Your absolutely right. It's not a design flaw. It's gotta be something else, just not a design flaw.

Oh and by the way I just spoke with both of my mechanics and they agree. It's a design flaw they said the worst thing you can do is idle a lot and low rpm driving

But your right it's Not a design flaw Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I should also add that if it's not a design flaw it's the way they designed it. Which may or may not make sense to you.
Being a mechanic my self in a different field I see this every day.
And my statement is
" if they made something that would last forever( and they could)
How many would they make, and what would happen to there stock price?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think Engineers, Managers and bean counters sit around devising ways and means for planned obsolescence? What kind of job that would be for Type A Engineers...to gauge / ensure failure :^(

I agree regarding the term design flaw versus QC / product consistency. For example, it is possible the lifter operating angle (Shallow) could be a design flaw. Still - the lifter is not the root failure. Batches of blocks that were not machined correctly and starve, for example the #5 lifter assemblies, is a QC issue. Another design issue could be a marked drop in dynamic operating pressure due directly(!) to oil galleys that are upstream --> downstream (resulting pressure drop is worse for certain lifters). I have no expectation of an FCA employee admitting to me; "yes - we've determined cylinders x, x, and x operate at a consistently lower dynamic pressure - which is still above the required threshold to maintain proper valve lash, but during extended hot-idle can begin to starve the roller needle bearings" ;^)

So let me ask then, how many have failed ? Does anyone know? Or are you just speculating that it's a fraction of what they made. What's the cutoff number ? 20% before you consider it a flaw in design
Personally I think it's a higher number then you think. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The OP promised - his numbers are above reproach - in the millions! I talked to Techs across four local Dealerships, along with others I know in-industry; they laughed at the "millions" of failures. To date - zero evidence has been put forth. As to a class action lawsuit getting off the ground - in any way shape or form, I have a significantly better chance of becoming the all-round "nice guy" that everyone just loooves and adores on here :^)

Obviously it's a fraction of what they made.

What part of, "If it was a design flaw, they would all have the issue" don't you get?

You also (obviously) missed the 3rd paragraph of my post. We do not have enough information. The amount of failures is part of that information.

The internet is notorious for blowing things out of proportion. Here, we have a very small (miniscule) number of owners. When 5 people out of 100 have a problem, it seems much more of a problem than when say 100 out of 10,000 in the real world have it.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

Hear hear...

 

[CE9311]

Here is a undershot of a Chrysler Designed 3.3 I keep at the foot of my bed. Gonna go ahead and say must be a miracle of all these engines rely on crank splash lubrication and this baby looks like its gets as much splash as the Sahara gets rain and yet, still has never been widely known for lifter/roller failures due to idling or low rpm use. Like to also point the engine with improvements over time, including use in a racing platform by Shelby (Can Am series) was in production for nearly 30 years.

And even then, I would say this argument is not valid, in a discussion involving a completely different engine. I would only use it to show that really old school thinking needs to stay where it belongs. With old School stuff.

 

[Dudly]

Unfortunately the moderators just let this place run wild with a few "know it all's" who troll the forum and belittle and marginalize anyone who has a differing opinion than themselves. This thread is a perfect example where the OP has been harassed and belittled and the moderators don't give a damn. It's too bad, there is a lot of really good information on this forum, and the majority of the people here are great, but a few bad actors really taint the place with an ugly aura.

Your 100% correct
I made two or three posts and already have 3 or 4 people my on ignore list! I am on Many different forums and NEVER had to do this!
They make NO clear argument with any supportive proof of anything!
They wanna argue a point with no evidence OR just Parrot what they read on other web sights or go by what others say on other web sights Reviews PARROTING.

At least Yellow Bullet and Speed talk all are all Professionals, There they listen and make suggestions from experience!
people who talk smack or don't know what they are talking about are quickly put in there place!

Just Me But I would rather get advise from a Guy with a wall full of Wally's Or a Guy who Owns a Full blown Machine shop than some Key Board commandos on some web forum.

 

[CE9311]

Your 100% correct
I made two or three posts and already have 3 or 4 people my on ignore list! I am on Many different forums and NEVER had to do this!
They make NO clear argument with any supportive proof of anything!
They wanna argue a point with no evidence OR just Parrot what they read on other web sights or go by what others say on other web sights Reviews PARROTING.

At least Yellow Bullet and Speed talk all are all Professionals, There they listen and make suggestions from experience!
people who talk smack or don't know what they are talking about are quickly put in there place!

Just Me But I would rather get advise from a Guy with a wall full of Wally's Or a Guy who Owns a Full blown Machine shop than some Key Board commandos on some web forum.

I have a no "ignore" policy as being an adult I learn to deal with people in proper ways instead of burying my head in the Dirt. I find the only ones here calling for mods, and claiming to be victims are the ones who are being proven wrong by actual evidence, logical thought out data driven ideas. Typically the losing team does call the referee more often..

I will mention everything you listed, your are 100% guilty yourself of. Specially where you have not provided any data driven proof to back up the claims of crank splash being the cure.

 

[Renfrick1]

So let me ask you this then? Why does that block , and I say that block because it’s based on the 5.7 and 6.4’s have so many problems with lifters and cams?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CE9311]

So let me ask you this then? Why does that block , and I say that block because it's based on the 5.7 and 6.4's have so many problems with lifters and cams?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why does only some of them have issues and not all of them?

Why is it that no 3 and No 5 cylinders seem to be common?

Why is it that MDS and Non MDS lifters can fail in other random places beyond the two fore mention cylinders?

Why is it that within a year range in the 2010-2013 seem to be the worst years for lifter failures compared to other years?

Why does the fail parts not show excessively heat in the metal?

If you can answer all of these and they all point to the same conclusion, then you will have an answer. Prolonged Idling, and "splash lubrication" is a flawed ideal that ignores many other factors. A design Flaw would effect everything built to said design. A Defect effects a number of parts within a range of time/miles/wear/use.

 

[MADDOG11]

Finally back and I CAN SEE AGAIN!!! Almost back to my previous 20/15 eyesight once the swelling in my eyes goes away!! Don't EVER take your vision for granted girls!!!

 

[MADDOG11]

First, so what was the "BS" I retracted? I may have changed wording, for the sake of argument, but I don't recall retracting ANYTHING.

Second, so what evidence would you people who doubt this is a premature failure like? An internal TOP SECRET memo from Chrysler admitting they know and have chose to ignore it in hopes it just goes away?

Third, I'm actually collecting all the failed lifters in a bucket, as someone suggested earlier, that my techs get and getting copies of RO's.

Fourth, the machine shop where my lower end is being rebuilt has performed all the tests he can. At this point the block is in fantastic condition, the oiling system (oil galleys) has equal and adequate flow (no restrictions). There were only two issues with the engine other than the spun cam bearing which caused no damage to the block (interesting). The first one was caused by my tech who had to split the cam bearing through the lifter bore to get the cam out and accidentally hit the block deck surface with the chisel. Obviously my chisel is a lot harder steal than the block, so they had to deck it and took off about .003". The second thing is, as I found out on Monday, the #4 main journal of the crank has a crack that goes almost 2/3 of the way around the journal. Not really sure how this happened and neither does the machine shop. When I asked could this cause a continued lifter failure, the answer was "NOPE"! I then asked what else could cause a numerous lifter failures on the same cyl and same lifter bore? He said he sees this same failure all the time and the only thing he could theorize was it's a design flaw in the oiling system of some type. Hmmm...interesting! The machine shop is Scroggins Machine, Inc in Houston if anyone would like to call and confirm. He's going to do some polishing work around the lifter bores and the oil passages as best as he can to promote better oil flow and return.

As far as the crankshaft I have a new forged crank coming for it and hopefully get this beast back on the road before the end of the month or so I hope!!!

 

[MADDOG11]

Also, I find it strange that OP in this thread claim they've talked to all of these techs at their local dealers, Chrysler mgt, the president of Chrysler, etc and they all claim to have no knowledge of this FAILURE!!!

With that being said, this morning I had a customer pick up his 09 that he just dropped $6382.22 on.......wait for it.......#5 INTAKE LIFTER FAILURE AND DESTROYED CAM!!! He's done all of his maintenance here since 09 and hasn't missed an oil change. Vehicle only has only 86K miles on the odometer. If anyone would like I can provide a copy of the RO with personal information withheld of course.

Also it's interesting that Chrysler is now all of a sudden, like within the last 3 months, putting a $100 core charge on these damaged cams. They are NOT rebuilding them so why would this all of a sudden happen? Are they running out of steal and needing these old cams for recycling purposes? Doubtful!!!

 

[GTSDart340]

Here we go again

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Renfrick1]

Funny I just spoke to one of the techs at my local dodge dealer two days ago and he says he’s seen more failures then you could shake a stick at and shakes his head on why anyone would a dodge. He says Dodge knows about this and won’t do anything about it because it would bankrupt the company on a recall. but yet doesn’t change the design. So figure that out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MADDOG11]

Yup nice to SEE you again Kevin!

 

[Renfrick1]

Do you think Engineers, Managers and bean counters sit around devising ways and means for planned obsolescence? What kind of job that would be for Type A Engineers...to gauge / ensure failure :^(

Yes. I do believe that. Like I said if they made something that lasted forever how many would they make ??and what would happen to there stock price ??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MADDOG11]

Funny I just spoke to one of the techs at my local dodge dealer two days ago and he says he's seen more failures then you could shake a stick at and shakes his head on why anyone would a dodge. He says Dodge knows about this and won't do anything about it because it would bankrupt the company on a recall. but yet doesn't change the design. So figure that out

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually it wouldn't be a recall, as recalls are a safety concern issued by the NTSB, but more like an extension of warranty like Chrysler has done on many of the Petastar 3.6L for driver's side head defect. They only fall under the extension of warranty for very specific ACTIVE failures that need to be verified by a CHRYSLER technician with very specific testing performed first! This then spreads out the repairs thus preventing the possibility of getting hit by thousands and thousands of very expensive repairs all at once.

 

[2005rtmag]

Reliability is why people pay premium prices for used Toyotas. You would think Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler would have noticed by now.

 

[OlGeezer2018]

Correct in fact that recalls are only for safety....You ask, why wouldn't Dodge redesign the part ?...Simple, in doing so, they admit it's flawed...Open to Big $$ settlements..,,Cheaper to just replace with same , hence future failures..and make it a TSB so most owners won't know of,,,IMO