DODGE RAM FORUM banner

261 - 280 of 293 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Doogie5, I have a 2009 Dodge 15001500 5.7 with cam/lifter issue. The class action investigation by Gordon and Partners doesn't seem to address models older then 2016 and not 1500. I will call them to further investigate. thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
HI!

I figured I would post here as everyone is probably worn out by the 71 pages of the sticky thread on this topic.

I've started a class action suit for this issue. I need 5 individuals with this problem to be initially named to file the suit.

From attorney " I need any pamphlets, user manuals or other paperwork from when the car was purchased. Ideally there be a separate document spelling out the warranty terms. Also a repair bill or something stating the exact issue."

Bonus is you are from South Carolina ! would make the suit much easier to file. Feel free to DM me if interested.
I'm having an issue with a 2010 Dodge ram and the lifter ticking on it. Was checking to see if there was a recall on this and I came across this class action. Is Dodge repairing the 2010 Dodge Rams with the problem with the cam and lifter failures?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
746 Posts
Let’s fatten up some more lawyers wallets, class action usually results in a % of pennies on the dollar. Warranties are a specific time period ,we purchased with vehicle. But it looks like lots of people on here want their shit to be taken care of for ever. mechanical parts wear out,parts break, life ain’t fair. Someone else take responsibility for me and my actions, it’s not my fault bo ho hold my hand. If it’s warranted,have it fixed. If not ,be an adult and take care of your own shit. Lawyers and car salesmen fall under the same category in my book ,try to never have to have contact with either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
And Stellantis FCA should have put a vehicle on the market where an engine lasts longer than 50000 kilometers ! They FCA have known about this lifter failure for nearly ten years.!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
HI!

I figured I would post here as everyone is probably worn out by the 71 pages of the sticky thread on this topic.

I've started a class action suit for this issue. I need 5 individuals with this problem to be initially named to file the suit.

From attorney " I need any pamphlets, user manuals or other paperwork from when the car was purchased. Ideally there be a separate document spelling out the warranty terms. Also a repair bill or something stating the exact issue."

Bonus is you are from South Carolina ! would make the suit much easier to file. Feel free to DM me if interested.
I have a 2015 Ram 1500 5.7 and i just had the whole top end redone including thermostat because cam and lifters went out at around 98K miles. Warranty replaced it. 7 months later at 111K i started my truck and i heard a horrible ticking noise that stayed for over a couple minutes. It usually goes away right after startup and i now have HOT AC! I’m thinking the problem is coming back. Do you think i can get Dodge for faulty workmanship and get it done again for free??????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
I'm having an issue with a 2010 Dodge ram and the lifter ticking on it. Was checking to see if there was a recall on this and I came across this class action. Is Dodge repairing the 2010 Dodge Rams with the problem with the cam and lifter failures?
lol
I had a 2012 with only 60k miles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Look at a cutaway, there is a passage coming right from the oil filter housing to the lifter galley. Lifters are getting the same oil pressure that the heads are, and it actually hits the lifters sooner.

Your youtube oracle is ill-informed.
I have been following these posts since the beginning, and I have a few observations. Firstly, from all the photos that have been shown, I have not seen more than one lobe on the cam destroyed. If the cause was defective lifters, there must be some cases where there are multiple lobes damaged on the same cam. If it was an oil issue, why wouldn't there be more than one bad lifter? Secondly, if the roller bearings are getting debris introduced by the oil, why aren't all the lifters failing? Lastly, some writers have suggested earlier oil changes, but wouldn't the real culprit be inefficient oil filters?

my thoughts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
HI!

I figured I would post here as everyone is probably worn out by the 71 pages of the sticky thread on this topic.

I've started a class action suit for this issue. I need 5 individuals with this problem to be initially named to file the suit.

From attorney " I need any pamphlets, user manuals or other paperwork from when the car was purchased. Ideally there be a separate document spelling out the warranty terms. Also a repair bill or something stating the exact issue."

Bonus is you are from South Carolina ! would make the suit much easier to file. Feel free to DM me if interested.
I tried to DM you but the site won't let me (gives me a CAPCHA error). Do you have any updated information, I live in SC as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
I recently finished an engineering analysis of the lifter bearing failure. I believe the failure is a result of Rolling Contact Fatigue (RCF) within the bearings themselves. (See bearing failure technical data from SKF and NSK.) My calculations indicate that the original 18 needle bearing has significantly shorter life expectancy than the upgraded 13 needle bearing.

My calculations indicate that in 100k miles the original bearing would have a failure rate of 8000 engines per million engines and the upgraded bearing would have a failure rate of 1800 engines per million.

This assumes that both bearings are of equal quality (to current standards) in material, dimension and finish. If this was not the case for the original bearing, a much higher failure rate would be expected.

Below is a summary of the report content.


ABSTRACT:

An analysis was conducted to determine if the camshaft lifter bearings in the 2009 to 2012 5.7l Chrysler Hemi engine constitutes a design defect that leads to premature failures of the lifter system. We know the bearing was upgraded around 2013 to a more robust design and superior manufacturing. The analysis shows the upgrade bearing may be capable of infinite life, but at least reduces the probability of failure to ¼ of that, of the original bearing design. It is believed that the design upgrade would only have been implemented to correct the failure issue since the implementation cost of the new bearing is higher than the original. Therefore, Chrysler should have taken responsibility for notifying owners about the issue and compensating them for repair costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
746 Posts
Lawyers should do their own job . That lawyer is from and practices in south Florida. I hope you all enjoy giving to this persons retirement fund. Class action Attys get money plaintiff’s may get pennies on dollar if lucky. Lawyers,car salespeople,and doctors .the most trustworthy,honest beings on earth.HA HA HA HA
 

·
Registered
'18 RAM 3500 4WD Tradesman 6.4
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
It is believed that the design upgrade would only have been implemented to correct the failure issue since the implementation cost of the new bearing is higher than the original. Therefore, Chrysler should have taken responsibility for notifying owners about the issue and compensating them for repair costs.
This is arguing that because the company spent money on designing and implementing a component with improved durability, the component it replaces should be considered a "failure", even though the vast majority of those components didn't fail at all, and even fewer failed within OEM powertrain warranty period.

Further, it is arguing that it follows therefore that the company should be on the hook for compensation for all those component failures.

It's gibberish.

So let's say a car company comes up with a design upgrade which increases the longevity of their water pumps after noticing an elevated failure rate (almost all of them outside the OEM warranty period) after 4 year production run, and spends extra money to fund the "implementation cost" of this more expensive but more durable water pump.

Does that mean the previous water pumps were a "defective" design?
No, it means the replacement is an improved design. It happens all the time in industry and it's called ongoing product development.
Does it mean the company should be on the hook to compensate all failures—even if outside of the warranty period—for all the original pumps?
Of course not. That's crazy.
No company in the world could function if every time they spend money to improve a product or component design that expenditure could be used as evidence of prior "defects" in the original design that the company would be obligated to compensate for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
This is arguing that because the company spent money on designing and implementing a component with improved durability, the component it replaces should be considered a "failure", even though the vast majority of those components didn't fail at all, and even fewer failed within OEM powertrain warranty period.

Further, it is arguing that it follows therefore that the company should be on the hook for compensation for all those component failures.

It's gibberish.

So let's say a car company comes up with a design upgrade which increases the longevity of their water pumps after noticing an elevated failure rate (almost all of them outside the OEM warranty period) after 4 year production run, and spends extra money to fund the "implementation cost" of this more expensive but more durable water pump.

Does that mean the previous water pumps were a "defective" design?
No, it means the replacement is an improved design. It happens all the time in industry and it's called ongoing product development.
Does it mean the company should be on the hook to compensate all failures—even if outside of the warranty period—for all the original pumps?
Of course not. That's crazy.
No company in the world could function if every time they spend money to improve a product or component design that expenditure could be used as evidence of prior "defects" in the original design that the company would be obligated to compensate for.
Here in Australia the GCSRTs 6.4 litre motors are doing lifters from 60000 klms up,even had a couple of TH owners with problems.Rams are relatively new in A so little info re failures seen as yet.Failures occurring in fully Jeep serviced vehicles ,new crate motors etc.By now somebody should have come up with a definitive answer to why these failures are occurring.!
When three year old SRTs with full service records ,that cost the owner $90000.00 lifters fail then FCA refuse to come to the party something stinks.Th e only good thing that may come out of a class action is it may force FCA to fess up to the failures.
 

·
Registered
'18 RAM 3500 4WD Tradesman 6.4
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
Here in Australia the GCSRTs 6.4 litre motors are doing lifters from 60000 klms up,even had a couple of TH owners with problems.Rams are relatively new in A so little info re failures seen as yet.Failures occurring in fully Jeep serviced vehicles ,new crate motors etc.
This is not data, though, just as every post I've seen (it's hundreds) on this and other forums about this issue is not data.
So far as I am aware, there is no publicly available data on how many engines have had collapsed lifters and wiped cam lobes.
There is so very much that we don't know.
We don't know how many failures there are by year of manufacture, by mileage, by engine capacity, by service records, by driving conditions and styles or by lubricant type or brand. And much more.
We're totally flying blind except in an anecdotal sense.
We do know that a lot of people on this and other forums have wiped cam lobes in relatively young engines. That really sucks and they are understandably pissed off.
We can also reasonably assume that a lot of those people who are pissed off make a point of seeking out a forum such as this to express their displeasure. I know I would. So it's likely that there's an over-representation of the issue here.

Down here in the cheap seats we don't have access to the kind of data that would allow us to do anything but speculate, and that includes the "I recently finished an engineering analysis of the lifter bearing failure." kind of thing.
Especially if that "analysis" descends into gobbledygook about "believing" the company is responsible for reimbursement because they spent money to upgrade a component involved in the issue.

I've seen multiple screeds in these threads which purport to have uncovered "the issue" - it's the kind of oil, it's the lifter roller design, it's lack of lubricant in the lifter gallery, it's excessive idle times, it's camshaft metallurgy, it's Chinese junk parts, and on and on.

I don't want to be misunderstood here - I'm not trying to fly air cover for a massive transnational corporation which for all I know really is deliberately suppressing the kind of data that would indicate malfeasance. It's entirely possible that they know what the problems are, but have concluded that eliminating it would be too costly in a wildly popular, actually iconic, "Hemi" engine family that is literally flying off the shelves.
But we don't have the data to confirm that.

What we do have is engines that work great until they don't, which puts us just about par with everyone else. Hemis are not the only engines that suffer valve train problems. Go on a Ford or Chevy forum and make a list of the crap that they are pissed off about. There's plenty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
This is not data, though, just as every post I've seen (it's hundreds) on this and other forums about this issue is not data.
So far as I am aware, there is no publicly available data on how many engines have had collapsed lifters and wiped cam lobes.
There is so very much that we don't know.
We don't know how many failures there are by year of manufacture, by mileage, by engine capacity, by service records, by driving conditions and styles or by lubricant type or brand. And much more.
We're totally flying blind except in an anecdotal sense.
We do know that a lot of people on this and other forums have wiped cam lobes in relatively young engines. That really sucks and they are understandably pissed off.
We can also reasonably assume that a lot of those people who are pissed off make a point of seeking out a forum such as this to express their displeasure. I know I would. So it's likely that there's an over-representation of the issue here.

Down here in the cheap seats we don't have access to the kind of data that would allow us to do anything but speculate, and that includes the "I recently finished an engineering analysis of the lifter bearing failure." kind of thing.
Especially if that "analysis" descends into gobbledygook about "believing" the company is responsible for reimbursement because they spent money to upgrade a component involved in the issue.

I've seen multiple screeds in these threads which purport to have uncovered "the issue" - it's the kind of oil, it's the lifter roller design, it's lack of lubricant in the lifter gallery, it's excessive idle times, it's camshaft metallurgy, it's Chinese junk parts, and on and on.

I don't want to be misunderstood here - I'm not trying to fly air cover for a massive transnational corporation which for all I know really is deliberately suppressing the kind of data that would indicate malfeasance. It's entirely possible that they know what the problems are, but have concluded that eliminating it would be too costly in a wildly popular, actually iconic, "Hemi" engine family that is literally flying off the shelves.
But we don't have the data to confirm that.

What we do have is engines that work great until they don't, which puts us just about par with everyone else. Hemis are not the only engines that suffer valve train problems. Go on a Ford or Chevy forum and make a list of the crap that they are pissed off about. There's plenty.
I have rebuilt more than a few road and race engines over the years,the wear on the hemi cam lobes ,lifters etc is not normal in engines with such low klms.These are not full race engines but relatively slow revving motors.one engine rebuilder alone here in Australia last year rebuilt 50 hemi motors with lifter failures ,at around $8000.00 each.! There is an inherent problem with these motors.Stellantis FCA would be more than aware of the failure rate.
 

·
Registered
'18 RAM 3500 4WD Tradesman 6.4
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
There is an inherent problem with these motors.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that there isn't, I'm just pointing out we don't know what the failure rate is or how those failures are distributed across mileage, year of manufacture, lubricant brands, style of driving, service record or much of anything else.
="bjm, post: 2275901, member: 192718"]
one engine rebuilder alone here in Australia last year rebuilt 50 hemi motors with lifter failures ,at around $8000.00 each.!
OK, but again, this is an anecdote, not data. We know nothing about those engines, how they were used and serviced or the model years or the mileage or the operating conditions. Reports such as this tell us nothing verifiable of any value. All they do is implant anxiety into Hemi owners by implying that they're defective engines and if you own one it's probably going to fail prematurely, which is almost certainly not true.

Some unknown percentage of these engine are failing prematurely, we do know that. What we don't know is if that percentage is significantly outside of industry norms, and if so by how much.
the wear on the hemi cam lobes ,lifters etc is not normal in engines with such low klms.
I'm not disputing that it's happening, I'm saying we don't know the failure rate, so we don't know if it's not "normal" in the sense of being statistically outside of industry norms or not, and if so, by how much.
My personal guess would be that it is outside of those norms, but that's a guess based on reading anecdotal accounts from very annoyed RAM owners on forums like this one. I have no actual data to back it up.

It's also interesting to me that almost all the reports I've read on this and other forums (they're anecdotal too, of course) involve one lifter failing and wiping out a single cam lobe. Rarely have I seen reports of multiple lifters failing in the same engine, or even reports of finding evidence of other lifters showing damage but which have not yet failed.

If the problem is a design defect — as suggested by the "analysis" posted by @Wsands77 — then the defect would affect all lifters equally, and in an engine with a failed lifter one might reasonably expect to find other lifters showing evidence of impending failure.
If, by contrast, the problem is an intermittent manufacturing defect that affects a certain small percentage of lifters, a single isolated lifter failure with no evidence of others "on the way out" is much more likely.
Stellantis FCA would be more than aware of the failure rate.
I'm sure they know how many engines have failed when still under warranty, because they've had to fix them. But how reliable their data is with failures outside of warranty is anyone's guess.
I would suppose if the out-of-warranty repairs were performed at a RAM dealership, Stellantis would, or should, get a report of it, but indy shops don't report to Stellantis, and folks who just pull their engine and drop in a crate rebuild don't either. Did the rebuilder who repaired those 50 engines in a single year report those failures to Stellantis?

So not only do we not know what data Stellantis possesses, we don't know how accurate it is, and probably neither do they.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that there isn't, I'm just pointing out we don't know what the failure rate is or how those failures are distributed across mileage, year of manufacture, lubricant brands, style of driving, service record or much of anything else.

OK, but again, this is an anecdote, not data. We know nothing about those engines, how they were used and serviced or the model years or the mileage or the operating conditions. Reports such as this tell us nothing verifiable of any value. All they do is implant anxiety into Hemi owners by implying that they're defective engines and if you own one it's probably going to fail prematurely, which is almost certainly not true.

Some unknown percentage of these engine are failing prematurely, we do know that. What we don't know is if that percentage is significantly outside of industry norms, and if so by how much.

I'm not disputing that it's happening, I'm saying we don't know the failure rate, so we don't know if it's not "normal" in the sense of being statistically outside of industry norms or not, and if so, by how much.
My personal guess would be that it is outside of those norms, but that's a guess based on reading anecdotal accounts from very annoyed RAM owners on forums like this one. I have no actual data to back it up.

It's also interesting to me that almost all the reports I've read on this and other forums (they're anecdotal too, of course) involve one lifter failing and wiping out a single cam lobe. Rarely have I seen reports of multiple lifters failing in the same engine, or even reports of finding evidence of other lifters showing damage but which have not yet failed.

If the problem is a design defect — as suggested by the "analysis" posted by @Wsands77 — then the defect would affect all lifters equally, and in an engine with a failed lifter one might reasonably expect to find other lifters showing evidence of impending failure.
If, by contrast, the problem is an intermittent manufacturing defect that affects a certain small percentage of lifters, a single isolated lifter failure with no evidence of others "on the way out" is much more likely.

I'm sure they know how many engines have failed when still under warranty, because they've had to fix them. But how reliable their data is with failures outside of warranty is anyone's guess.
I would suppose if the out-of-warranty repairs were performed at a RAM dealership, Stellantis would, or should, get a report of it, but indy shops don't report to Stellantis, and folks who just pull their engine and drop in a crate rebuild don't either. Did the rebuilder who repaired those 50 engines in a single year report those failures to Stellantis?

So not only do we not know what data Stellantis possesses, we don't know how accurate it is, and probably neither do they.
I agree we don't have numbers on actual failure. If we did we could look at the data spread by miles (or cycles) and see where it falls relative to expectations for a high quality bearing of similar design.

As for the "analysis", I am not saying all the bearing fail at one time. Failures of this kind are based on fracture mechanics (micro-crack growth) that starts at surface of sub-surface defects. The failures would follow a Weibull distribution. You would need to read and understand the full report.

I also agree that some bearings that have not fully failed would probably show some signs of spalling. You would need to cut them apart and check the axles and needles for pitting.
 
261 - 280 of 293 Posts
Top