5.7 HEMI preventative care, which flavor of 5w20

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
45,842
Location
Ontario, Canada
I realize this and have read the threads here for years, even though I've only owned a hemi for a few months.

Does UTG completely miss that though? Haven't all domestic push-rod V8s with lifters have pressure lubed lifters both for the bore and lash adjustment bits on them like forever?
To me, he talks at length about how the lifters lay so flat that any oil running down the lifter body (be it pressure lubed or not) falls off before it reaches the roller and needle bearings for the rollers. That and how that oil gallery pipe blocks oil flinging off the crankshaft from reaching the cam and rollers. I can't bring myself to watch/listen to the video again. LOL and yes.. I get it that it's been talked about.

Yeah, he completely misses it, he says the lifter bores are splash lubed and that's why he was seeing varnish and that no oil was able to make its way to the rollers completely missing the fact that the lifter bores are constantly being fed a steady supply of oil from the pump, the excess, which is what goes down the body and onto the roller.

And yes, the lifters lay on a more severe angle than your typical vee engine but they definitely aren't flat.

This design is more dependant on lifter bore lubrication of the roller assembly than your traditional small block, which also had a splash lube component, but rollers are less reliant on a generous oil film in that area than FT engines, so I expect that was a design consideration. Given that most of these engines live long, healthy lives, I wouldn't conclude it's a design flaw of the engine but rather an issue with the lifters, hence the multiple revisions. That said, we can't rule out valve float as a contributor to that failure.

Engines that idle a lot will of course have lower oil flow and a higher propensity to accumulate varnish. I recall one of the failures on the truck 6.4L we saw, which was run on M1 0w-40, had a surprising amount of varnish and it was noted that the engine was in a wrecker and so the truck sat and idled constantly, waiting for calls.

Our lone fleet vehicle that experienced lifter failure was a truck that spent most of its time in town. Lots of stop and go, probably a fair bit of idling, so its service, on the same NAPA 5w-20 that the rest of the trucks see at the same interval would be more severe and I suspect it had a LOT more varnish inside than the other trucks, many of which are higher mileage, some significantly at well over 200,000 miles.
 
Last edited:

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
45,842
Location
Ontario, Canada
Doesn't Bio/ Tech say on the front of the bottle that it minimizes varnish and sludge? So if it is a low mileage vehicle your Fram and a short oci plan might extend the life. Right?
Not that I use the product but owners are looking to be proactive. I know I would be.

Lots of additives claim all kinds of amazing feats. Mobil 1 or any other premium lube already minimizes varnish and sludge so I don't think an additive is going to improve upon that characteristic and I am generally opposed to additives in general as I feel defiling a fully formulated lubricant with something that wasn't a part of its chemistry when blended is more likely to have a negative synergy with that blend than improve it.
 
Last edited:

Zee09

Site Donor 2021
Messages
4,963
Location
Fairhill Maryland
Lots of additives claim all kinds of amazing feats. Mobil 1 and any premium lube already minimizes varnish and sludge so I don't think an additive is going to improve upon that and am generally opposed to additives in general as I feel defiling a fully formulated lubricant that wasn't a part of its chemistry when blended is more likely to have a negative synergy with that blend than improve it.

I have only used one additive in 40 years and that I understand. I think for the desperate it may be worth a shot. I am not a Hemi owner at least since a 2009 Challenger RT. I didn't keep it but for a year. I think if I was in this situation what's $10...
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
45,842
Location
Ontario, Canada
I have only used one additive in 40 years and that I understand. I think for the desperate it may be worth a shot. I am not a Hemi owner at least since a 2009 Challenger RT. I didn't keep it but for a year. I think if I was in this situation what's $10...

If one is desperate then I presume you mean they are already in the grips of lifter failure at which point they are better served putting that money toward lifter and camshaft replacement than trying to wizard it away in futility.
 

Zee09

Site Donor 2021
Messages
4,963
Location
Fairhill Maryland
If one is desperate then I presume you mean they are already in the grips of lifter failure at which point they are better served putting that money toward lifter and camshaft replacement than trying to wizard it away in futility.
Yeah that $10 could come in handy😝😝😝
Ps. I switched it up a bit 🎃
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
45,842
Location
Ontario, Canada
Uncle Tony didn't miss that.
At 4:45.

Ahhh, didn't realize there was a follow-up video. He definitely missed it in the first video, which you'll note if you watch it.

So it sounds like his theory has now evolved to the galleys feeding the lifter bores (now being mentioned) and providing 30+ psi of oil pressure to surround the lifter bodies is insufficient and that dumping oil on a lifter that's not in a bore and isn't moving demonstrates that this setup won't adequately lube the rollers.

Guess GM really hit it out of the park with their lifter failures on the AFM engines then, given it's essentially the same failure model, likely similar in rate of occurrence, but with lifters at a normal angle amongst myriad other design differences (no reverse oil flow through the rocker for example, no high mount cam...etc).

Note that I'm not saying I know exactly what causes the issue, I don't. I have some theories, but that's all they are, and they are based on the failure model, which has, as part of it:
- the fact that it impacts both MDS and non-MDS engines
- the fact that GM appears to be having the same issue, despite clearly different architecture,
- the fact that it typically happens at >100,000 miles
- the fact that on engines where it has happened, varnish is typically present
- the fact that if it isn't caught early, the failure will cascade and impact other lifters (particulate contamination of the needle bearings)
- the fact that both GM and Chrysler have revised the lifters several times
- the fact that both engines have relatively high valve lift
- the fact that SRT engines appear to be affected at a lower rate than non-SRT engines
- the fact that most engines never experience the failure

I'm sure I've missed some things, but you get the point I'm sure.

I also think that Chrysler and GM both know exactly why it happens and that's why they've revised the lifters multiple times.
 
Last edited:
Messages
95
Ill chime in as a 35 yr dealer tech. I am almost 100% sure this is a poor quality part. The pin that the roller runs on is not hard enough/hardness varies too much between lifters. We see the same issue on the 3.6, actually to a greater degree. Is failure reduced by less idle time/more splash ? Yes .
We actually had alot of failures in hemi cop cars, and they came out with a software update that raised the idle a bit after so long at idle/in park/no foot on brake. And actually 99% of the ones we pull down 3.6 or hemi are quite clean inside. I have popped apart quite a few lifters(hemi) and followers(3.6) over the years, and if they are just starting to go bad, you will see a groove in the pin , where the load is concentrated. Once grove gets bad enough, then the pins start getting out of place and the roller starts skidding. The 3.6 starts to tick pretty quick once pin starts to groove, they must not use much preload. ALot of those cams can be reused if caught quick enough. Hemi its a crap shoot. I'd say about 30% get reused. They are kind of a thrashy engine as is, so most dont catch on till too late. We have had quite a few low mile failures too, just had a 55k one on thurs, and it was super clean inside. I will also say, there was a lower failure rate on early build ones too, wasnt till about 08 or so we started seeing alot. I'll try and remember to grab some pics on one of them next time.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
45,842
Location
Ontario, Canada
Ill chime in as a 35 yr dealer tech. I am almost 100% sure this is a poor quality part. The pin that the roller runs on is not hard enough/hardness varies too much between lifters. We see the same issue on the 3.6, actually to a greater degree. Is failure reduced by less idle time/more splash ? Yes .
We actually had alot of failures in hemi cop cars, and they came out with a software update that raised the idle a bit after so long at idle/in park/no foot on brake. And actually 99% of the ones we pull down 3.6 or hemi are quite clean inside. I have popped apart quite a few lifters(hemi) and followers(3.6) over the years, and if they are just starting to go bad, you will see a groove in the pin , where the load is concentrated. Once grove gets bad enough, then the pins start getting out of place and the roller starts skidding. The 3.6 starts to tick pretty quick once pin starts to groove, they must not use much preload. ALot of those cams can be reused if caught quick enough. Hemi its a crap shoot. I'd say about 30% get reused. They are kind of a thrashy engine as is, so most dont catch on till too late. We have had quite a few low mile failures too, just had a 55k one on thurs, and it was super clean inside. I will also say, there was a lower failure rate on early build ones too, wasnt till about 08 or so we started seeing alot. I'll try and remember to grab some pics on one of them next time.

That all fits quite well with the multiple revisions of the lifters too, for both FCA and GM. They may use the same supplier.

I've heard of a few low mileage examples too, but it seems the majority are high mileage ones and are often idled a lot (tow trucks, cop cars...etc). I know there was a theory floated at one point that using Hellcat lifters would fix it, but of course then it was discovered that the odd Hellcat engine experienced it too, so that went out the window.

GM cams are apparently billet, unlike the FCA ones, so they are more likely to survive an event than the HEMI cams.

Interesting note about the increase post '08, did the lifter design change at that point? or did something else change? More aggressive camshaft?

The groove in the pin idea would mesh with the float theory too, or at least play into it on higher mileage mills with springs weakened by age. Wouldn't take much of a flutter/float to smack that pin into the needles and have one of them start to dig a groove.
 
Messages
95
That all fits quite well with the multiple revisions of the lifters too, for both FCA and GM. They may use the same supplier.

I've heard of a few low mileage examples too, but it seems the majority are high mileage ones and are often idled a lot (tow trucks, cop cars...etc). I know there was a theory floated at one point that using Hellcat lifters would fix it, but of course then it was discovered that the odd Hellcat engine experienced it too, so that went out the window.

GM cams are apparently billet, unlike the FCA ones, so they are more likely to survive an event than the HEMI cams.

Interesting note about the increase post '08, did the lifter design change at that point? or did something else change? More aggressive camshaft?

The groove in the pin idea would mesh with the float theory too, or at least play into it on higher mileage mills with springs weakened by age. Wouldn't take much of a flutter/float to smack that pin into the needles and have one of them start to dig a groove.

One thing to be careful of, of revisions, is that revision is not always an improvement. Its a change of some sort, even a supplier, but not always an improvement....... as much as we would hope :)

One thing about low mile ones too, is they are under warranty , so most u dont probably hear of. Mr Jones has a "tick" , drops it off at dealer , picks it up fixed and think "they replaced a lifter" Most owners have no idea whats involved in fixing them. And yes idling certainly does make it worse. Really though, if good materials, a roller bearing requires very little oil to live.

And the groove is not caused by floating. etc. The pin is too soft/surface hardening too thin. Ones i have popped apart, that had just started , everything looked mint, even the rollers.....just the pins had a nice groove in it.

Early build ones DID have MDS lock pin issues in the lifters, changed quite a few for that. The pins wouldnt stay locked out , and lifter would collapse. Havent seen that in awhile.
I think the thing is, while this is an issue, and common enough, I don't think Chrysler really cares. The failure rate under warr. is low enough, while they are paying that the cost outweighs the fix cost. And they dont care about you after warranty is up. There are aftermarket roller lifters in the racing market, that are drilled to supply oil flow to the roller so really it could be fixed. But at what cost? Pennies to them are huge. I'll bet its shocking how little they pay for a lifter.
 
Messages
8,575
Location
Texas
I've got a 2016 Ram Limited, 88k miles, Hemi 5.7. I go by the oil monitor and have ran either QSUD or Mobil 1 in 5w/30. No issues to date. Does anybody know if the '16 model year Hemi is in the "range" of the problem motors?
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
45,842
Location
Ontario, Canada
One thing to be careful of, of revisions, is that revision is not always an improvement. Its a change of some sort, even a supplier, but not always an improvement....... as much as we would hope :)

One thing about low mile ones too, is they are under warranty , so most u dont probably hear of. Mr Jones has a "tick" , drops it off at dealer , picks it up fixed and think "they replaced a lifter" Most owners have no idea whats involved in fixing them. And yes idling certainly does make it worse. Really though, if good materials, a roller bearing requires very little oil to live.

And the groove is not caused by floating. etc. The pin is too soft/surface hardening too thin. Ones i have popped apart, that had just started , everything looked mint, even the rollers.....just the pins had a nice groove in it.

Early build ones DID have MDS lock pin issues in the lifters, changed quite a few for that. The pins wouldnt stay locked out , and lifter would collapse. Havent seen that in awhile.
I think the thing is, while this is an issue, and common enough, I don't think Chrysler really cares. The failure rate under warr. is low enough, while they are paying that the cost outweighs the fix cost. And they dont care about you after warranty is up. There are aftermarket roller lifters in the racing market, that are drilled to supply oil flow to the roller so really it could be fixed. But at what cost? Pennies to them are huge. I'll bet its shocking how little they pay for a lifter.


The mileage thing was from the mouth of one of my buddy's who has been a dealer tech for around 20-25 years. His position was that it was usually high mileage engines in his experience and that it was rarer with the SRT's, in fact he'd never done them on an SRT.

Anyways, I like your points here, they appear to eliminate the idea that valve float is a potential contributor and definitely brings us back to it just being a supplier/materials problem, which explains why GM has the same issue and why most engines are never affected.
 
Messages
327
Location
Kern Co. California
I currently have an 06 300C with the 5.7l. I ran Mobil 01 with matching filter for years. No issues. I decided to switch to a Wix filter and PUP and the engine seems to really like it.. Seems a little smoother. I have always ran intervals of every 5k miles (easy to remember, and now just habit, I know I could do longer, but I like what I have been doing). So far I have 180K on the car and it runs well and oil analysis reports support its in good condition.
 
Messages
21
Location
Texas
So I'm sure we all know the history of 5 7 Hemi's having needle bearings seize and freeze the rollers, causing lifter failure and grinding down the cam. There are 2 reasons thst I've found that are blamed for the failure. 1. Is that the design of the motor doesn't get enough oil to the lifters or the camshaft at or below ~1500rpm. 2. Is varnish buildup on the internals of the rollers, causing the bearings sticking to the race, seizing, and causing the failure.
As such, it seems that the 5.7 would be better served (not trying to argue that there's a miracle oil) by a particularly high-detergent oil to bulwark against varnish formation, and a high anti-wear additive oil to better serve that cam. I know everything API SN/SN+, GF-5/6, MS-6395 meets standards for the motor, but in my application i want to pamper the motor. Given all that, I can't decide between Pennzoil Ultra and Shell Rotella Gas Truck. In 5w20, theyre both good oils obviously, and I'd normally go with the PUP but it appears from the VOA's I've been able to find it seems that PUP has a lower molybdenum, zinc, and phosphorus count (all of which i believe are markers of anti-wear additives) while at the same time has a higher Calcium and Magnesium count (detergent markers i believe) RGT shows higher levels of the anti-wear additives but has lower detergency. So with PUP having the better base oil and slightly better detergency, it appears that their anti-wear package is a little anemic compared to RGT. Ideally, I'd be happy with an oil with the anti-wear package of RGT and the detergency of PUP. So between the 2, which one, given the application seems more appropriate? Are there other oils thst meet MS-6395 with the detergency levels found in SOPUS oils (PUP in particular) that have higher levels of anti-wear additives (moly, zinc, phosphorus)?
For reference, I do a ~5000 mile OCI with either a Wix or Fram Ultra. My driving is mostly in-town short trips (<15mi) and semi-rural state routes (35-40 miles at 50ish MPH) i don't do a ton of highway time.
And living in New England, ill only use synthetic because -15 degree starts suck
Honestly, I think it all depends on whether or not your engine rolled snake-eyes on the assembly line and got one or more defective lifters from the supplier.

The idea that the cam doesn't get enough oil is, IMO, laughable. There are lots of copcar 5.7s that have racked up several hundred thousand miles, even with the high idle-time drive cycles they accumulate. The susceptible years seem to be the "eagle" engines (2009-up) with the first revision (small needle bearing) lifter design. The older ones and newer ones aren't immune, but its a much more typical defect rate. Whoever supplied that middle group of lifters should be paying FCA/Stellantis a lot of money right about now...

All that said, and owning a 6.4 from the "cursed years" myself (albeit a non-MDS stick shift), my personal hedge against trouble (which I freely admit may be entirely superstition) is Redline 0w40 oil with its high percentage of ester base and the theory that esters are superior at wetting/clinging to metal. I wouldn't recommend 0w40 in a 5.7 as it might throw VVT slow response codes at you, but they do make 5w20 and 0w20 with similar chemistry. No MS-6395, but that's a ridiculous spec to push owners toward SOPUS products anyway.
 
Messages
21
Location
Texas
So many theories on the hemi lifter issues.. Some swear by everything uncle Tony says, some don't. He definitely knows 100x what I know. I just don't know if I buy his theory or some of the others I've read.
I've been reading Tony DeFeo's writing since the 90s, and generally find his knowledge trustworthy... except on modern engines. :-/

I was practically yelling at the screen when he was talking about the "wear" marks on the side of the roller lifters that "indicated lack of oil." Tony, Tony, Tony...Old-school flat face lifters like small- and big-block Mopars (and Fords, chevies, Buicks, Olds, Cads, Pontiacs, AMCs, etc.) used up until the 80s spin constantly and have therefore a perfectly uniform wear pattern (or lack thereof, frankly) on the outside surface where they ride in the lifter bore. In contrast, roller lifters DO NOT spin in their bore like flat-face lifters do, and so always rub the same side against the same spot in the lifter bore, mile after mile after mile. They DO establish a linear wear pattern because of that... in every, single, cotton-pickin' application. Thats not lack of oil, its lack of rotation.
 
Messages
1,975
Location
FL
Valvoline synthetic , and yes I have experienced oil consumption using PP in the 0w20,5w20,and 5w30 grades
Cannot escape oil consumption, not even with Redline 5W-30 with HTHS=3.7 and Vis @ 100°C = 11.9. It is minimal though.
 
Last edited:
Top