Lifter Failure Root Cause Same as HEMI?

[cfkahn]

I know there are a lot of posts published online about this, but I can’t find an answer to my specific question.



Yes, I am trying to learn what causes the lifter failure in the 5.3L and 6.2L V8 engines. I found something interesting about lifter failure in HEMI engines, and I wonder if the GM V8 engines experience the same type of failure.



The 5.7L and 6.4L HEMI V8 engines have an affinity for lifter failure like the GM engines do. No, I am not entirely sure it’s the same type of failure, but if it is, then I’m wanting to learn if there is a similar solution. Let me elaborate a bit more.



A master FCA technician spent years collaborating with an engineer to determine and find a solution for HEMI lifter failure. Hd referenced FCA’s lifter failure statistics, which found that most lifter failure events occurred in vehicles with high idle times and/or poor oil change maintenance. That led them into investigating oil lubrication quality at varying levels, such as at idle and throughout a range of throttle input.



Online, it seems the oldest and most popular theory among HEMI owners (and GM V8 owners) is that the cylinder deactivation technology (AFM, DFM, MDS) causes the problem. In the case of the HEMI engines, the technician emphasized that the same type of lifter failure occurred on both MDS and non-MDS V8 models, so he wasn’t convinced the cylinder deactivation is the root cause. It is still possible that MDS might have an effect in correlation with inadequate lubrication, but not the root cause, which is again according to the technician.



The technician and his engineer co-researcher concluded that inadequate oil lubrication at idle is the root cause of excessive lifter and camshaft wear, leading to premature failure. A ticking noise is a tale-tale sign of excessive lifter wear. His solution is to replace the stock oil pump with a higher volume oil pump, such as the Melling 10452HV oil pump. It increases the oil volume by 20%. According to the tech, it allows the oil to lubricate key areas that do not get properly oiled otherwise, thus preventing the excessive wear and tear.



Thoughts? Has anyone found information suggesting that inadequate lubrication is the root cause of lifter failure in the 5.3L and 6.2L V8 engines?

 

[GMCnewbee]

My opinion about this is that the cause of lifter failure is either bad design or bad manufacturing. Yes, improper lubrication does not help anything, and I agree that it is another possible cause or at least a contributing factor. I think whoever makes the lifters either does not pay attention to the specs or just plain figures that nobody is checking and they can get away with "changes" to the metals, dimensions, or the "finish" that lowers their cost and increases their profit. This is just simple logic and speculation on my part. Since every engine on earth is not failing there is certainly an element of randomness, that is, not every lifter is designed or built "wrong", and not every engine is subjected to the same use or has the same amount of care by the User. Do you feel lucky?

 

[Marky Dissod]

My opinion about this is that the cause of lifter failure is either bad design, or bad manufacturing.

The two-mode lifters appear to feel the same way, given their performance history, especially vs simpler lifters'.
MY OPINION is that the lifters were intentionally spec'd & designed by GM to not be as robust as simpler lifters.
If a 3rd party's specs / design is inferior to GM's already inferior specs ...

Yes, improper lubrication does not help anything, and I agree that it is another possible cause,
or at least a contributing factor.

I wonder to what extent 0W20 or 5W20 is improper lubrication, especially compared against 0W30 or 5W30.
Not all synthetics are created equal ...

I think whoever makes the lifters either does not pay attention to the specs,
or just plain figures that nobody is checking and they can get away with
"changes" to the metals, dimensions, or the "finish" that lowers their cost and increases their profit.
This is just simple logic and speculation on my part. Since every engine on earth is not failing,
there is certainly an element of randomness, that is, not every lifter is designed or built "wrong",
and not every engine is subjected to the same use or has the same amount of care by the User.

Do you feel lucky?

If luck is the residue of design, then it'd behoove one to research and select the best lifters.
Pay once, cry once. In Spanish, "lo barato, sale caro", roughly translates to "cheap turns out costly".

VERY SERIOUSLY CONSIDER Engine Half@$$ Delete.
Single mode lifters are better designed and proven to last FAR longer than two-mode lifters.

 

[15burban]

Having a hemi for the past 8 or so years I've read up a little on the hemi cam and lifter failures. First truck 05 1500 with the 5.7 no mds. 2nd and current truck 16 2500 6.4 with mds. Hemis came back out in 03 in the trucks. First year of mds was 06. 09 the hemi got eagle heads and I'm pretty sure the same year they raised the cam up higher in the block. The one who designed this spec'd a billet cam. Did a billet cam ever make it into the hemi. NOPE. In 17 supposedly the lifters got bigger needle bearings. I personally have never heard of a cam or lifter failure from a 03-08 only 09+. I'm not saying it hasn't happened just I haven't heard or read about them in the 03-08s. 09+ I've heard of a lot but again guys most of the time don't come on here to say their vehicle is running fine.

Like I think was mentioned hemi manual challengers that don't have mds still have cam and lifter failure. There's a lot of theories, cheap parts, cam too high in the block, lighter weight oil that keeps getting lighter and lighter, mds, too low of idle rpm, too long between oil changes and many more. Hemis are also known to be princess motors and what oil you use can make a big difference on the sounds it makes running.

I don't know much about the 5.3 and 6.2 but one way I'd assume the cam and lifters are different is another theory that the hemis cam gets more oil flow when the mds lifters are kicked in and is only running on 4 cylinders. Again a theory since when I engage tow haul in my truck it won't let it go into 4 cylinder mode. You would think when your engine is working its hardest they would have designed it for optimal flow.

It would be neat to find out the real cause and roughly how many (%) have cam and lifter failure. I highly doubt we will ever know. My guess, for the hemi at least, is moving the cam up higher along with cheapening out on parts.

With the 15 suburban we have a range afm disabler. My Ram I let do its thing only on the highway and that's only for as long as I can take it. The magnaflow sounds like crap when the mds kicks in.

 

[zbad55]

The GM lifter failure and issues were due to a supplier spill and the lifter springs, a lot of them got released to the plants before the issue was identified and corrected,

 

[Silverado4x4]

The cause of the lifter issue was improper heat treating of the lifters from the supplier which was identified. The bad batch was Sept 2020 to March of 2021 engine build not vehicle build

 

[Marky Dissod]

The cause of the lifter issue was
improper heat treating of the lifters from the supplier, which was identified.

Identified, as ... whom?

The bad batch was Sept 2020 to March of 2021 engine build,
not vehicle build

Two-mode lifters will still never be as reliable, as one-mode lifters, even if the two-mode lifter never gets to be lazy.

 

[tom3]

The early lifter failures are probably due to the heat treatment issue noted above, but it's much more common for the lifters to fail after 80k miles or so, almost a sure thing. Looking at the actual parts and studying the operation it's pretty easy to see why. And to add to the misery that AFM and the programmed slipping of the torque converter lock up clutch destroys the clutch, and the transmission with all the debris. Comparing the lifters:

Standard type lifter"

GM AFM lifter:

 

[Chevymec]

in 2009 I had a 2010 1500 come in with a loud tapping in the top end. under 700 miles the AFM lifter spring had broken. I believe GM's bulletin at the time said it was a bad batch of lifters and to replace ALL lifters. Our chargers have hemi's and are on a pretty strict maintence schedule of 3000-3500 for service. I do agree the high idle times don't do them any favors. We have had some with 30k miles start the hemi tick. Lucas synthetic additive is added to them every service and to be honest, I don't think it helps. We use Mobil oil "synthetic blend". Gotta put the cheapest thing in there!

 

[Donal]

The early lifter failures are probably due to the heat treatment issue noted above, but it's much more common for the lifters to fail after 80k miles or so, almost a sure thing. Looking at the actual parts and studying the operation it's pretty easy to see why. And to add to the misery that AFM and the programmed slipping of the torque converter lock up clutch destroys the clutch, and the transmission with all the debris. Comparing the lifters:

Standard type lifter"

View attachment 428676

GM AFM lifter:
View attachment 428677

Good photograph of the lifter. I find it interesting that the almost never shown component related to the failures is the little oring that seals between the block tower for each cylinder, and the volm assembly. If this oring is damaged or re-used, a leak of oil occurs and the lifter cannot maintain the locked-in condition.

 

[15burban]

Its a little expensive but hemi's love redline 5w30. I run it in my 6.4 that calls for 0w40 pennzoil ultra platinum and I couldn't believe how much quieter the motor was after putting in the redline oil. My truck truck has never had the "hemi tick". It's a thicker 30 weight and has a lot of moly in it. Otherwise rather then adding lucas to the oil add 15 ounces of lubegard biotech. That also has a lot of moly and helps quite down the hemi tick.

 

[Redracechris36]

There is an article out there that says a lot of lifter failure is due to oiling, or lack thereof. I will see if i can find it.

 

[aJohnM1948]

There is an article out there that says a lot of lifter failure is due to oiling, or lack thereof. I will see if i can find it.

My 2018 Tahoe LS had a V8/V4 indicator on certain pages of the DIC. I can’t find an indicator like this on my 2025. Is Chevy trying to pretend cylinder deactivation doesn’t exist because of the problems it can cause? I read previously it caused problems in 2% of prior generation vehicles and never read a root cause. Was it variation in machining tolerances (my bet), dirty oil, driving habits, something other? I could always connect my Autel OBD2 meter on to monitor cylinder deactivation if I wanted to ensure an after market product like a Range DOD/DFM device is doing it’s job of keeping the car in V8 mode, but that’s a PIA if one would have to do that periodically to insure such devices were (still) doing their job.

 

[Marky Dissod]

Disable cylinder deactivation, by any means available.
If you can afford the sacrifices of money and downtime, delete the feature completely at your convenience.
The investment will pay off when your engine lasts far longer with less oil consumption.

Til then, change the motor oil and ATF more often than GM says.

 

[GMCChevy]

I know there are a lot of posts published online about this, but I can’t find an answer to my specific question.



Yes, I am trying to learn what causes the lifter failure in the 5.3L and 6.2L V8 engines. I found something interesting about lifter failure in HEMI engines, and I wonder if the GM V8 engines experience the same type of failure.



The 5.7L and 6.4L HEMI V8 engines have an affinity for lifter failure like the GM engines do. No, I am not entirely sure it’s the same type of failure, but if it is, then I’m wanting to learn if there is a similar solution. Let me elaborate a bit more.



A master FCA technician spent years collaborating with an engineer to determine and find a solution for HEMI lifter failure. Hd referenced FCA’s lifter failure statistics, which found that most lifter failure events occurred in vehicles with high idle times and/or poor oil change maintenance. That led them into investigating oil lubrication quality at varying levels, such as at idle and throughout a range of throttle input.



Online, it seems the oldest and most popular theory among HEMI owners (and GM V8 owners) is that the cylinder deactivation technology (AFM, DFM, MDS) causes the problem. In the case of the HEMI engines, the technician emphasized that the same type of lifter failure occurred on both MDS and non-MDS V8 models, so he wasn’t convinced the cylinder deactivation is the root cause. It is still possible that MDS might have an effect in correlation with inadequate lubrication, but not the root cause, which is again according to the technician.



The technician and his engineer co-researcher concluded that inadequate oil lubrication at idle is the root cause of excessive lifter and camshaft wear, leading to premature failure. A ticking noise is a tale-tale sign of excessive lifter wear. His solution is to replace the stock oil pump with a higher volume oil pump, such as the Melling 10452HV oil pump. It increases the oil volume by 20%. According to the tech, it allows the oil to lubricate key areas that do not get properly oiled otherwise, thus preventing the excessive wear and tear.



Thoughts? Has anyone found information suggesting that inadequate lubrication is the root cause of lifter failure in the 5.3L and 6.2L V8 engines?

The hemi lifter failure is due to bad needle bearings in the lifter. It has nothing to do with MDS as even the cylinders and engines without it can have had the problem. They came out with the ones with bigger bearings to correct it.
It does seem odd that roller lifters have been around for decades and multiple manufacturers have issues now. They do seem pickler with maintenance and oil type then older vehicles.

 

[blanchard7684]

Typical failure modes are a collapsed lifter (the switching mechanism won't deactivate) or the roller failure (needle bearing failure). Either one can damage the camshaft lobe, but the roller failure will damage it to a greater extent.

There are other failures such as the locking pins not fully engaging causing the inner lifter to get stuck or lodged into the outer lifter body. This is a miss timed switching event. Technically this is also a collapsed lifter.

This video (1:00) talk about what happens. It is a good video in general on the lifter activation/deactivation cycle.

There could be a number of other failure modes but they are extremely rare.

Of course manufacturing defects can be a source of lifter failures. There was a bad batch in 2020 and 2021. These years seem to have a large representation in the failed lifter statistics.

There is another issue though...the engines that are higher in miles that fail with collapsed lifter or failed roller in the 60K-150K range. These failures also have a high occurrence of camshaft lobe damage.

This is where a defect may be unlikely as a cause for the typical failure modes.

Tolerance stacking may be afoot: a few pieces of the system may be at the extremes of their spec limit making it more sensitive to and prone to failure.

And it is also possible there are end-user issues.

When both are combined it can lead to a lifter failure earlier than expected.

Example.

Miles above 60K. Oil changes every 7000-7500 miles. lots of idle time in hot ambient conditions. 0w20. Oil temps at or above 220F for appreciable time.

The lube quality (viscosity, additive package degradation, acid number) is simply not adequate for keeping needle bearings from being at a point of incipient spalling.
Lube quality could be too poor for preventing spalling between cam lobe and roller.
Varnish can be causing lifter DFM cycle to be slow due to being gummed up. This can cause the miss timed switch event.

If a lifter had a tolerance stack issue on one or more component, the above operation would easily lead to early lifter failure.

I think these engines with DFM (in particular) are more sensitive to oil quality. Even without a tolerance stack issue, oil maintenance will put the lifter and cam at risk of early failure.

Example

Oil change interval 7500 miles on average. Sometimes 10K, 8K because life gets in the way and you can't get to a shop for an oil change. Most of the time it is changed at 7-7.5K. Always on 0W20. oil level not monitored. likely low on oil most of the time. Engine has 100K-150K miles. Lots of idle time waiting for kids at the game or school or in traffic jam.

Without the tolerance stack issue it will go further in miles before seeing same failure.

Throw in people who use the wrong oil (conventional mineral or even group III mineral, instead of group IV synthetic); or people who are absurdly intent on getting all they can out of their oil changes and go 10,000-12,000 miles (or 12 months)...and with the large customer base GM has with these engines, you are going to get a huge number of these types of errors...and associated early failures.

Putting the "Venn diagrams" together I have yet to see a significant number of these failure modes on engines managed by enthusiasts: people who will be changing oil at or before 5K miles, don't idle their vehicle excessively, use 5W30, do their own maintenance...any one of these categories seems to put their associated engines outside of the 60K-150K failure range. Combining any two of these seems to create a good safety factor against failure and shows up as a likely candidate for 200K+ miles before seeing these failures.

Specifically with Ram engines...I have experience with a 2017 Ram that just ate a lifter at 228,000 miles. Truck was used like a rented mule. Towed at max capacity 40% of the time. But the owner changed his own oil at 5000 miles, always used a good filter and full synthetic oil. But he used 0W20. He also complained all the time about getting oil temp warning lights and found that the truck usually had an oil temp of 230F. So with exceptional maintenance the system went 228,000 miles even on 0W20 at 230F.

 

[Marky Dissod]

It does seem odd that roller lifters have been around for decades and multiple manufacturers have issues now.

They cannot resist pinching pennies harder & more often, as in, picture several people at several different levels all whinging,
'How hard can we push down on the price of a roller rocker?"

ChrysCo & GM fyouseekay'd around and found out.

 

[jfoj]

My 2018 Tahoe LS had a V8/V4 indicator on certain pages of the DIC. I can’t find an indicator like this on my 2025. Is Chevy trying to pretend cylinder deactivation doesn’t exist because of the problems it can cause? I read previously it caused problems in 2% of prior generation vehicles and never read a root cause. Was it variation in machining tolerances (my bet), dirty oil, driving habits, something other? I could always connect my Autel OBD2 meter on to monitor cylinder deactivation if I wanted to ensure an after market product like a Range DOD/DFM device is doing it’s job of keeping the car in V8 mode, but that’s a PIA if one would have to do that periodically to insure such devices were (still) doing their job.

From my experience the Range device works well but seems to still activate the DFM lifters during Decel With Fuel Cutoff (DFCO). I have seen the deactivation counts increase using one of my scan tools. In the short term, just drive the vehicle in L9, even on the highway, the top 3 gears are all Over Drive anyway.

As for keeping these engines alive, do not run 0W20 oil, run either 5W30 or 0W40. Change it often, typically at 50% OLM. Be aware of Fuel Dilution issues, start the engine, wait for the RPM's to drop, then drive normally.

Read this post - Range Anxiety