Hemi tick lawsuit

[Dusty]

The only lawsuit related to "ticking" I'm aware of is Petro, et al., v. FCA US LLC out of the Delaware federal district court, which was filed several years ago. There are three plaintiffs: Shawn Petro (2020 Ram 2500), Mike Fairchild (2015 Ram 1500), and David Kinchen (2016 Ram 1500).

Plaintiffs suit alleges damages in cost of repairs as well as a loss of resale value the tick imposes on the owners.

As stated in the suit, plaintiffs contend the "ticking" is unique to Gen 3 Hemi engines with MDS and claim the MDS is the cause, and that "Hemi engines should last 200,000 miles and valve train components should last more than 100,000 miles."

They also contend that metal particles from failing components are circulated in the oil causing other engine damage.

The class action suit is being handled by Berger Montague PC, Capstone APC, Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiseberg Gilbert, and Gordon & Partners, all well known class action law firms.

Upon inquiry I was told that there were less than 60 qualified persons eligible to enjoin the suit out of several hundred mostly because owners could not provide maintenance evidence or deviated from factory maintenance recommendations.

Just my opinion, but looking at the pleading I think the only people making out on this will be the lawyers.

Regards,
Dusty
2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Laramie Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33-gallon fuel tank, 18” wheels. Build Date: 3 June 2018. Now at 99248 miles.

 

[demonram]

The basis of the lawsuit is premature lifter failure on hemi engines. All signs point to a design defect. While Ram's silence on the matter is not unexpected for a manufacturer, several customers who have experienced the failures under warranty have had an extremely hard time getting any replacement. It's one thing to stay silent about a design flaw, it's another to try to disclaim responsibility and blame the customer.

When mine failed, I was under the mileage, which for my truck was 100,000 miles, but it was a few months past the 5 year part. RamCares was super about fixing my truck. I paid a 10% co-pay, around $300.00. It was done in a reasonable time frame.

 

[62Blazer]

I'm playing devil's advocate here....I understand people's frustrations if they have to spend big $ fixing their truck. Here a few comments I have, just because I worked in the automotive industry and big corporations and know a little about this type of stuff (just enough to be dangerous).
- Somebody mentioned "premature failure". Define exactly what you mean by "premature". The only way you can claim this is if the engines fail within the warranty period AND Ram refuses the warranty claim. A person can't arbitrarily decide what premature actually means. You simply can't go in to this and say you had to replace the cams and lifters at 120,000 miles but you "think" it should have lasted longer. Also guarantee Ram will present tons and tons of data of all of the trucks on the road that have NOT had this repair.
- Ram is not necessarily paying the same attorney/legal fees regardless of the lawsuit. Sure, they have full-time attorneys employed by Ram and possibly others on retainer. However in a large case they most likely will have to pay extra attorney fees to handle this type of case. The attorneys on staff typically don't have enough time to dedicate all of their time to this one court case. Not like these people are just sitting around in their office everyday drinking coffee waiting on a class action lawsuit to happen. Again, any money this costs Ram will be passed back to the customer in the form of higher vehicles costs, period.
- I guarantee you Ram/Stellantis/whatever you want to call them are not sitting around a conference room saying "hey, let's intentionally make engines that have cam and lifter failures at low miles"....sorry, it just doesn't work that way. Say what you want about these companies but they are always reviewing warranty claims and seeing what they may need to change or improve. There is a cost benefit analysis going on. If you know there is an issue it will costs $XX amount to make it better. They compare that to how much $ they pay out in warranty claims. If if costs more $ to eliminate, or even just improve, the issue versus the $ they pay out in warranty costs you have to stop and think about it. Part of the decision is how it will affect sales.

 

[ramffml]

I'm playing devil's advocate here....I understand people's frustrations if they have to spend big $ fixing their truck. Here a few comments I have, just because I worked in the automotive industry and big corporations and know a little about this type of stuff (just enough to be dangerous).
- Somebody mentioned "premature failure". Define exactly what you mean by "premature". The only way you can claim this is if the engines fail within the warranty period AND Ram refuses the warranty claim. A person can't arbitrarily decide what premature actually means. You simply can't go in to this and say you had to replace the cams and lifters at 120,000 miles but you "think" it should have lasted longer. Also guarantee Ram will present tons and tons of data of all of the trucks on the road that have NOT had this repair.
- Ram is not necessarily paying the same attorney/legal fees regardless of the lawsuit. Sure, they have full-time attorneys employed by Ram and possibly others on retainer. However in a large case they most likely will have to pay extra attorney fees to handle this type of case. The attorneys on staff typically don't have enough time to dedicate all of their time to this one court case. Not like these people are just sitting around in their office everyday drinking coffee waiting on a class action lawsuit to happen. Again, any money this costs Ram will be passed back to the customer in the form of higher vehicles costs, period.
- I guarantee you Ram/Stellantis/whatever you want to call them are not sitting around a conference room saying "hey, let's intentionally make engines that have cam and lifter failures at low miles"....sorry, it just doesn't work that way. Say what you want about these companies but they are always reviewing warranty claims and seeing what they may need to change or improve. There is a cost benefit analysis going on. If you know there is an issue it will costs $XX amount to make it better. They compare that to how much $ they pay out in warranty claims. If if costs more $ to eliminate, or even just improve, the issue versus the $ they pay out in warranty costs you have to stop and think about it. Part of the decision is how it will affect sales.

I think the argument is that the cost/benefit analysis is targeted at the "warranty has just expired" point. I don't agree with that, but that's generally what the argument seems to be.

The reason I don't agree that FCA designed a short running engine is because there are tons of high mileage hemis out there, and that FCA has revised the lifters more than once to try and correct this issue. Clearly not every engine (nor even the majority) are experiencing issues, many run for a long time without issues.