Avoiding the hemi tick?

[LoneStarSilver]

Where is this video you speak of. Prior to having my current 2018, which has 130K and has been idled quite a bit, I had a 2012 that was idled way more that is being reported here that should not be done. When I traded the 2012 in on the 2018 it had just over 300K on it and still ran very well. The only problem I had was with the exhaust manifolds breaking bolts and warping. both had to be replaced twice within those 300K miles. I have yet to have such problems with the 2018. Both have the 5.7 Hemi engine in them. I performed all oil/filter changes on the 2012 with Penzoil 10W30 and Fram Filters every 5K religiously. On the 2018 I have had it serviced at the dealer every 5K because I have the Maxcare Lifetime Warranty and don't want to do anything that could jeopardize that since I plan to run this RAM till the wheels fall off.

 

[carlhambo]

View attachment 504225
First step to hopefully avoiding the hemi tick. Thanks to this site for all the great information.

Any ideas on where to buy this from? Im in the UK and amazon appears to be the only seller but they have no stock to sell.... Thanks

 

[dragrazor]

Any ideas on where to buy this from? Im in the UK and amazon appears to be the only seller but they have no stock to sell.... Thanks

Amazon would be the only place that comes to mind. These products not sold in auto parrs stores in the U.K.?

 

[Burla]

Re-read my post. Then re-read your answer. Yes it is as simple as changing the oil. The recommended PUP, whether 5W20 or 5W30 made my Hemi have start-up tick for a few seconds at start-up in the morning when the oil approached 3000 miles. When I was a chemist out of college, we ran experiments with controls and documented the results and graphed them for ease of analyzing the data. When I leave all things constant, only changing the oil returned my valvetrain to quiet status again. It is the oil.
When I cut/mix my PUP with RedLine 5W20 or 5W30, I can easily keep my hemi quiet past the 3000 mile OCI. I have gone 4000 miles with that mix and kept a quiet Hemi. I am not throwing away perfectly good oil. It isn't working in my Hemi anymore. Maybe I can use it in my Lawn Boy, but its not doing its job in my Hemi.
If I use your suggested OCI of 7500 miles, my PUP filled Hemi would have started to tick somewhere around 2500 miles and I would have become part of the "ticking" Hemi club for the next 5000 miles till my computer told me to change my oil. After a few 7500 OCI like this, I believe it would have become a perpetual "ticking" Hemi.
Since you poked the bear, I think my ear is doing a better job of determining when my oil needs to be changed better than the computer in my truck. The noise you hear is mostly, if not all metal on metal. After a few long OCI intervals, metal will wear and tolerances will increase. This is why, I believe, some oils will quiet/mask a noisy Hemi, but the metal depletion is irreversible.

This is an awesome post, right on. If it isnt broke don't fix it. However, with the work this forum has done on filtration, specifically spun microglass filtration, looking up data on how this media filters against paper when NEW, plus testing old filters for pliability, plus the uoa's on redline oil in hemi's, if you so chose, you could extend that interval and run 100% redline, that would pay for itself. However, I always wondered and predicted that a split redline plus any group 3 oil like you have done, would also give great hemi tick protection, so thanks for your post.

Hemi owners are just like citizenry these days, divided. People who don't have tick think everything is hunky dory and we are crazy, while we know the world is falling in and we know you are crazy because hemi tick is coming to your shores you just don't know it yet. You can follow whatever data you want, there is plenty of evidence on both sides of this coin.

 

[A_mod_too_far]

I think the hemi tick originates from the push rod rocker arm area and if caught early could be solved by having the push rods replaced or precisely cut to length, but the out of tolerance push rod will eventually cause the lifter to wear down the cam and good quality oil will slow down the process.
Of course I am just a rando that knows next to nothing about engines, just my theory

 

[ramffml]

I think the hemi tick originates from the push rod rocker arm area and if caught early could be solved by having the push rods replaced or precisely cut to length, but the out of tolerance push rod will eventually cause the lifter to wear down the cam and good quality oil will slow down the process.
Of course I am just a rando that knows next to nothing about engines, just my theory

I think FCA themselves have disproved that theory, by the fact that they've reworked the actual lifter sometime in 2016. Why would they do that if it was a rocker arm issue? Unless you feel they're just guessing at the problem and not really knowing what it is.

 

[Burla]

The cause of hemi tick can be many different things from stuff outside engines to things inside engines and back and forth. Rods can be related to hemi tick, or any pushrod engine getting tick, but you need to find the specific cause of a tick in an engine without being too general about it. Probably the most crazy thing about hemi tick is how similar they all are in noise and cadence. Have to put in the work if you want to fix it.

 

[A_mod_too_far]

I think FCA themselves have disproved that theory, by the fact that they've reworked the actual lifter sometime in 2016. Why would they do that if it was a rocker arm issue? Unless you feel they're just guessing at the problem and not really knowing what it is.

You are assuming the lifter was revised for that reason, it could have been revised for any number of engineering reasons completely unrelated. FCA never said the reason it was revised.

 

[ramffml]

You are assuming the lifter was revised for that reason, it could have been revised for any number of engineering reasons completely unrelated. FCA never said the reason it was revised.

Yes I'm assuming the lifter was revised due to the fact that it was destroying itself and then the cam lobe. I can't imagine FCA would know about this, and yet rework the lifter for a different unrelated reason.

 

[Burla]

The devil is in the details, it wasnt that the lifter was revised, but how the lifter was revised. That paired with nationwide shortage on dealer lifters for years at that point. Safe bet they changed the lifter because they were not happy with the cam/lifter jobs that were packing their shops. But, the real interesting part is you have to assume they have seen a fair share of cam lobs, and damage for roller bearing is very specific, and it is very rare on the cams damaged from bad roller as opposed to poor lubrication or out of tolerance lifters, so why not fix those issues along with the roller? I can't believe it would have been that hard to fix, maybe fca didnt really want to fix it, just show that they attempted to. If you were a dealer and most cam fails are happening out of warranty, I can't think you would be that broken up over it. Opportunity to sell the poor guy a new truck? Or milk his butt for a new cam 10 grand and up guys are paying.

 

[Dan Topp]

Lots of entertaining vids about how using the mds to get additional oil to the lifters and cam. One said replacing the mds lifters with non mds and instead of blocking plates just letting the mds solenoids do their thing? I’m afraid if I went that route it would be heads and cam since ive heard the guide inserts fail. But seriously if it has this many flaws and is a 6600 lb slug ,I won’t sink that much into a 5.7,and the blower can be put on something else.

 

[A_mod_too_far]

Yes I'm assuming the lifter was revised due to the fact that it was destroying itself and then the cam lobe. I can't imagine FCA would know about this, and yet rework the lifter for a different unrelated reason.

But many other parts have also been revised such as the cam phaser, vvt selenoid, and the revised lifters still fail. How do you know what the reason would be for larger needle bearing without understanding the engineering? Perhaps FCA does nothing because they know lifter failure is caused by driver abuse and they cannot prevent it in anyway with the current design. Everything is assumptions unless you track down an engineer

 

[MudSkipper]

Dan Topp​

Except that idea is dumb...mking stupid f'ing videos just to get you to click on their yt videos...

People are desperate for youtube fame The MDS increases pressure to only those lifter when its running... and it expects the lifter to collapse when it closes... but it doesnt...

MDS shut down and start up happens in .24 second for all 4 cylinders... to JERK that process around is stupid and asking for failure...

Leaving the MDS solenoids in place and turning it off in the ECU is dumb also. Whats the point?

unsub from that moron he has no clue what he is doing

 

[A_mod_too_far]

The devil is in the details, it wasnt that the lifter was revised, but how the lifter was revised. That paired with nationwide shortage on dealer lifters for years at that point. Safe bet they changed the lifter because they were not happy with the cam/lifter jobs that were packing their shops. But, the real interesting part is you have to assume they have seen a fair share of cam lobs, and damage for roller bearing is very specific, and it is very rare on the cams damaged from bad roller as opposed to poor lubrication or out of tolerance lifters, so why not fix those issues along with the roller? I can't believe it would have been that hard to fix, maybe fca didnt really want to fix it, just show that they attempted to. If you were a dealer and most cam fails are happening out of warranty, I can't think you would be that broken up over it. Opportunity to sell the poor guy a new truck? Or milk his butt for a new cam 10 grand and up guys are paying.

I've read many stories on these forums of dealerships jumping to cam and lifter replacement without real diagnosis and litterly just throwing lifters at every single hemi tick along with the hysteria of the owners losing their mind over a tick without even considering it could be something else once the word got out about the lifter failure and people were still under warranty.

I've read so much on here I'm not convinced of anything at this point

 

[MudSkipper]

But many other parts have also been revised such as the cam phaser, vvt selenoid, and the revised lifters still fail. How do you know what the reason would be for larger needle bearing without understanding the engineering? Perhaps FCA does nothing because they know lifter failure is caused by driver abuse and they cannot prevent it in anyway with the current design. Everything is assumptions unless you track down an engineer

the issue is roller lifter technology.... a spec of dirt... dirty oil... bypassing your oil filter with too high of oil pressure(like some idiot who suggested using hellcat oil pumps in 5.7 engines) ...

Dirt or a spec of something can clog AFM/MDS lifter operation also, not just the roller needles... GM has a huge class action from their lifters sticking... its a huge weak point on engines that use roller lifters.

One spec of sand can lock up a roller lifter... even smaller than a spec of sand can. its the weak point of any engine using roller lifters... But it allows for higher efficiency/power so its a trade off.

This is probably another reason to ditch the v8 for the inline 6 dual overhead cam.. no more roller lifters.

 

[Wild one]

The 6.2's and 6.4's use piston oil squirters.Now if you were to take that technology and use a similiar squirter but focus it towards spraying oil on the face of the lifters roller and the cam lobe,i would hazard a guess you would see a notable improvement in the life of the cam and lifter

 

[A_mod_too_far]

the issue is roller lifter technology.... a spec of dirt... dirty oil... bypassing your oil filter with too high of oil pressure(like some idiot who suggested using hellcat oil pumps in 5.7 engines) ...

Dirt or a spec of something can clog AFM/MDS lifter operation also, not just the roller needles... GM has a huge class action from their lifters sticking... its a huge weak point on engines that use roller lifters.

One spec of sand can lock up a roller lifter... even smaller than a spec of sand can. its the weak point of any engine using roller lifters... But it allows for higher efficiency/power so its a trade off.

This is probably another reason to ditch the v8 for the inline 6 dual overhead cam.. no more roller lifters.

Certainly an interesting possibility, but the matter of fact way you say it seems unjustified

 

[ramffml]

But many other parts have also been revised such as the cam phaser, vvt selenoid, and the revised lifters still fail. How do you know what the reason would be for larger needle bearing without understanding the engineering? Perhaps FCA does nothing because they know lifter failure is caused by driver abuse and they cannot prevent it in anyway with the current design. Everything is assumptions unless you track down an engineer

As far as I know, only the lifters were updated beyond 2009, and that was around 2016-ish IIRC.

We make assumptions based on what we know FCA has done, and based on our experiments and years of reports. Many reports of failure, without "driver abuse".

 

[Wild one]

I've read many stories on these forums of dealerships jumping to cam and lifter replacement without real diagnosis and litterly just throwing lifters at every single hemi tick along with the hysteria of the owners losing their mind over a tick without even considering it could be something else once the word got out about the lifter failure and people were still under warranty.

I've read so much on here I'm not convinced of anything at this point

Curious on what you think the "tick" is, if it isn't lifter tick,and don't say manifolds as that's the only other obvious tick. So if it's not lifters or manifolds what do you think is causing the "tick" that the dealers are missing.

 

[A_mod_too_far]

As far as I know, only the lifters were updated beyond 2009, and that was around 2016-ish IIRC.

We make assumptions based on what we know FCA has done, and based on our experiments and years of reports. Many reports of failure, without "driver abuse"

I certainly dont mean it in a way of abuse of bad intent. I find myself on the morning commute when the engine is still cold pushing the pedal harder than I should when merging, because it's a hemi and I can. Surely that is not good for a pushrod engine.

So far I'm willing to wager that the issue could be a combination of poor quality control and the engines being abused in all types of conditions enginnered with a system that is probably sensitive due to the nature of moving parts metal on metal and the overall precision to begin with. How could an engineer fix that by revising a lifter?
Also considering that many lifters never fail, I dont think anyone can claim its a design flaw, I don't care what any lawsuit says.