Lifter tap

[Chevy538487]

Originally Posted By: clinebarger
Originally Posted By: Chevy538487
Originally Posted By: FranklinJL
200 on a lost cost GM 5.3 is pretty good. That noise could be anything on that mill, they are not known as a well built engine in the first place, most I seen give up the ghost right at 180-240k


Well I plan to go as far as I can with her, [censored] good truck!


Only on this site would a 5.3L have a bad reputation, They try too compare their pampered European & Japanese mills to something that gets WORKED. I'm building a 4L60E out of a 2000 GMC 1500 with over 400,000 on the original 5.3L & it has a HUGE street sweeper on it, The truck probably weighs 12,000 pounds with the Sweeper...My 9.000 pound swing arm lift will not lift it! I had to sub-out the R&R as it won't clear my 13,000 pound drive on lift.

Broken Valve Springs take A LOT of these engines out, Starts out as a tapping noise, You need to have it checked for a broke spring &/or a collapsed lifter. A worn oil pump or a shrunk pick-up tube O-ring are also possibilities.


I'm leaning towards the collapsed lifter..when it does It put in in natural and give her a rev it goes away..

 

[Chevy538487]

Originally Posted By: andyd
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Or...

You could have an injector that's starting to go, and making noise.

You could have an exhaust manifold leak that sounds like a lifter tap, that started right after the oil change.

You could have a lifter that's collapsed with age.

Correlation is not necessarily causality...
All those "could haves"are certainly possible. But I would strongly suspect the change of oil and filter. I have learned to return to my last repair when a symptom appears afterward. I'm perfectly capable of screwing something up whilst "fixing" something else .I would go back to the previous oil and filter, next change. Ifthe tap persists try looking for exhaust leaks or use a stethoscope on the lifters.

Thing is it does it with any oil and filter combo i use..didn't start to give me a problem with the valvoline and Bosch filter unroll it had 2800 before my last oil change

 

[BrocLuno]

OK, you live in TX so you don't have to do Wisconsin winters

Means you have time to play with this issue and you can try some alternatives.

If it were me, I'd change it for Rotella T6 and WIX/Napa Gold filter. Add a can of BG109 and drive it a bit.

I'd also get a mechanics stethoscope and listen all down the rocker covers for valve noises. If it's loud in one spot, it may be a broken valve spring ...

 

[FranklinJL]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: FranklinJL
200 on a lost cost GM 5.3 is pretty good. That noise could be anything on that mill, they are not known as a well built engine in the first place, most I seen give up the ghost right at 180-240k


A ludicrous comment. We have owned dozens here in a small fleet, not a single one has ever given us trouble. Easily go well beyond 200k miles and do it while working for a living...


The 5.3 is GMs economy V8, made cheaply as possible with a life expectancy of 200k....

It's not a 6.2, a 427, 454, 502 etc.

Good thing is my local junkyard has 5.3s for about 400-800 bucks...6.0s around 1200

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FranklinJL
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: FranklinJL
200 on a lost cost GM 5.3 is pretty good. That noise could be anything on that mill, they are not known as a well built engine in the first place, most I seen give up the ghost right at 180-240k


A ludicrous comment. We have owned dozens here in a small fleet, not a single one has ever given us trouble. Easily go well beyond 200k miles and do it while working for a living...


The 5.3 is GMs economy V8, made cheaply as possible with a life expectancy of 200k....

It's not a 6.2, a 427, 454, 502 etc.


It's an evolution of the LSx, no different in construction than any other generic (non hi-po) engine in the same family. Why would you compare it to an old BBC? Construction-wise, what is different about the 5.3 versus the 6.2? the share the same block design and have the same stroke with the primary difference being bore. To put a finer point on it: What is inferior in the construction of the Gen V 5.3 versus the same Gen V 6.2, both in truck use?

 

[FranklinJL]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: FranklinJL
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: FranklinJL
200 on a lost cost GM 5.3 is pretty good. That noise could be anything on that mill, they are not known as a well built engine in the first place, most I seen give up the ghost right at 180-240k


A ludicrous comment. We have owned dozens here in a small fleet, not a single one has ever given us trouble. Easily go well beyond 200k miles and do it while working for a living...


The 5.3 is GMs economy V8, made cheaply as possible with a life expectancy of 200k....

It's not a 6.2, a 427, 454, 502 etc.


It's an evolution of the LSx, no different in construction than any other generic (non hi-po) engine in the same family. Why would you compare it to an old BBC? Construction-wise, what is different about the 5.3 versus the 6.2? the share the same block design and have the same stroke with the primary difference being bore. To put a finer point on it: What is inferior in the construction of the Gen V 5.3 versus the same Gen V 6.2, both in truck use?


5.3s eat oil, and have always had lifter issues. 6.2s seem not to have those issues.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FranklinJL

5.3s eat oil, and have always had lifter issues. 6.2s seem not to have those issues.


I've heard the VCM engines in general have issues with oil consumption and lifters. This isn't an issue that is specific to the 5.3L AFAIK. Lifters, along with many other components would probably be common between the 5.3L and 6.2L if both are VCM. Given the same stroke, the crank may be common as well. This is pretty standard for the sake of cost effectiveness.

Think of it like the 5.4L and 4.6L Ford engines. They had different strokes and different deck heights, but most of the components were identical between the two engines, including the camshafts and cylinder heads. However the 5.4L got the reputation for spitting spark plugs far moreso than the 4.6L or even the 6.8L V10. That's not to say those other engines didn't have the issue; they most certainly did. But for whatever reason, the 5.4L was the one that got the reputation, likely due to the vehicles it was fitted and the duty cycle.

I'm sure somebody who works at a GM dealer could confirm, but I would be VERY surprised if the part # for the lifters between the L86 and L83 are different.

 

[FlyNavyP3]

The 4.8/5.3/6.0/6.2 truck engines all use the same lifters in the same years. LS7 used a different lifter.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FlyNavyP3
The 4.8/5.3/6.0/6.2 truck engines all use the same lifters in the same years. LS7 used a different lifter.


Thank you. Yes, I would expect the LS7 has a lot of parts not found in the other engines.

 

[FlyNavyP3]

Indeed it does, titanium connecting rods, forged 4.000" stroke crank, pressed in cylinder liners (instead of cast in) titanium intake valves, dry sump oiling system, billet Bain caps, lots of goodies. I owned one for about 3 years in a 2008 Z06 Vette and I'm currently building one for my 1968 Chevelle with a Whipple Supercharger, it should make about 1,000 HP on pump gas.

As to the durability of the 5.3, there are a TON of hot rod guys taking junkyard 5.3's slapping a turbo or two on them with new rod bolts a camshaft (and matching valve springs) and making crazy power with them. On the order of 1000+ to the tires and they just go and go. I would hardly call them a budget engine as eluded to above.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FlyNavyP3
Indeed it does, titanium connecting rods, forged 4.000" stroke crank, pressed in cylinder liners (instead of cast in) titanium intake valves, dry sump oiling system, billet Bain caps, lots of goodies. I owned one for about 3 years in a 2008 Z06 Vette and I'm currently building one for my 1968 Chevelle with a Whipple Supercharger, it should make about 1,000 HP on pump gas.

As to the durability of the 5.3, there are a TON of hot rod guys taking junkyard 5.3's slapping a turbo or two on them with new rod bolts a camshaft (and matching valve springs) and making crazy power with them. On the order of 1000+ to the tires and they just go and go. I would hardly call them a budget engine as eluded to above.


I've heard the same. Guys even doing it with the 4.8L, LOL

 

[FranklinJL]

I agree they can make lots of power with not a whole lot of money, I have a car club friend with a 1999 camaro club car, that has a 5.3 with all sorts of mods that makes north of 550hp on 110 octane and turns almost 9k...not bad for junk motor with initial cost of 600

 

[Chevy538487]

Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Sound anything like this?



... if so, it may be an injector.


Nothing showing

 

[Chevy538487]

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
OK, you live in TX so you don't have to do Wisconsin winters

Means you have time to play with this issue and you can try some alternatives.

If it were me, I'd change it for Rotella T6 and WIX/Napa Gold filter. Add a can of BG109 and drive it a bit.

I'd also get a mechanics stethoscope and listen all down the rocker covers for valve noises. If it's loud in one spot, it may be a broken valve spring ...



I'm gonna grab a wix tomorrow and see what the results will be

 

[mjoekingz28]

Originally Posted By: KingCake
Coincidence if anything. If you used the same viscosity oil then your oil pressure isn't different. A 5.3 over 200K is ready for the junk heap anyway.



Dude has been ragging on us lately.

First the LT1 Caprice now the 5.3

 

[SirTanon]

Originally Posted By: Chevy538487
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Sound anything like this?



... if so, it may be an injector.


Nothing showing


Odd.. the link is there, and it comes up in one of my browsers, but not in the other.. let's try...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb-B82mpTbg

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: FlyNavyP3
As to the durability of the 5.3, there are a TON of hot rod guys taking junkyard 5.3's slapping a turbo or two on them with new rod bolts a camshaft (and matching valve springs) and making crazy power with them. On the order of 1000+ to the tires and they just go and go. I would hardly call them a budget engine as eluded to above.


If I had one I would say I'm biased, but I have personally raised a bunch of these. We also run 6.0's in 3500 service vans. I even had a van with a 4.8 in it. Anyone imagining that they are any different in any significant way is crazy. ALL of them have given us excellent service in fleet duty, all city, many different drivers, etc. Serviced by the OLM only.

A great engine for longevity, right up there with any other brand...

 

[Chevy538487]

Originally Posted By: SOHCman
PP is by design a thin oil for fuel economy. Check the specs, it's viscosity will be right at the low edge of the grade. This isn't to say its a bad thing necessarily, but it could explain the tapping...


What if I mixed in some conventional penzoil with it? With that cause any problems? Maybe thicken it up a bit

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted By: FranklinJL

The 5.3 is GMs economy V8, made cheaply as possible with a life expectancy of 200k....

It's not a 6.2, a 427, 454, 502 etc.

Good thing is my local junkyard has 5.3s for about 400-800 bucks...6.0s around 1200


The L33 "HO" in the OP's truck is NOT a "economy V8", Is has bank to bank breathing like LS6 & Gen IV engines, Aluminum Block, Full Floating Piston pins/Bushed Rods, 2.00" Intake Valves, etc etc. It is different than a run of the mill LM7.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: Chevy538487
What if I mixed in some conventional penzoil with it? With that cause any problems? Maybe thicken it up a bit


Skip the Pennzoil and go straight to a can of STP.