[tortilla-flats]

Originally Posted by Bumbleboy92

Both ends of the spectrum, my car had a lifter fail at 10.5k miles with a fresh oil change done at the dealer 3 months prior <2k miles.

Luck of the draw, it’s just that the draw is slightly more common to be this failure than completely luck of the draw. I wouldn’t expect it to happen, but it can be a possibility for a few. I do agree potentially 90%+ of these engines never have a lifter issue

A RUD? They actually wrote it as a RUD on the work order? lol SpaceX fan, I guess.

[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by bishopts

Are they tho? How many of all of us have had lifters fail? Mine haven't.
I would bet my car vs your car that you will find more people in the forum that have no problems with their lifters vs DoD complete failure.
You are just following internet sheeple. They get on forums and bitch about their DoD system failure after never changing oil or flat footing their silverado on every stop light.
Mistreat an engine and it will fail. The thing you aren't comprehening is people don't get on forum and brag about how long they have gone with no DoD failure. They don't care. So the only input you find is the negative side of it. Ive said it in another post. For every 100 you find failed your gonna have 10000 that doesn't. Abs even within that. Out of your failure group. Most will be overdue on most oil changes if they even do them.

I kind of agree with you but what I’m seeing way too much of lately is bottom end failure. Two different people in the 1LE FB ground just this week posted cracked cranks. I will always believe that GM should have included the LT1 in the recall.

[bishopts]

i was thinking about it today. (remember im a diagnostic tech professionally) people are kinda gun shy on committing to leaving the AFM system alone, or even buying a car with it in the first place. yet they dont even bat an eye at the fact GM auto transmissions are probably 500 times more likely to fail than AFM.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by bishopts

i was thinking about it today. (remember im a diagnostic tech professionally) people are kinda gun shy on committing to leaving the AFM system alone, or even buying a car with it in the first place. yet they dont even bat an eye at the fact GM auto transmissions are probably 500 times more likely to fail than AFM.

That's because they can't swap a trans out, but eliminating AFM is relatively easy.

The lack of relliability with GM transmissions definitely factors into purchase decisions. Heck, they even managed to eff up the reliable original 10L90 with its latest "second generation" (referring to the valve body brouaha & 25-NA-158)...

[bishopts]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

That's because they can't swap a trans out, but eliminating AFM is relatively easy.

The lack of relliability with GM transmissions definitely factors into purchase decisions. Heck, they even managed to eff up the reliable original 10L90 with its latest "second generation" (referring to the valve body brouaha & 25-NA-158)...

Its the main reason i suggest manual if it's available. Auto isn't a question of if will it fail. It's more like , how long will it go before it does fail.

[dpevans]

So in the last 5 decades how often do you hear of lifter failure, pre DOD is was pretty rare, today even if 1 out of 1,000 fail that's too much. Read too many stories guys are pushing their motors at the track and the engine develops a misfire due to lifter failure. If you never track it or push the motor you probably won't have issues. It's even a problem on Toyota and Hyundia motors, my nephew has one in the shop right now getting the motor replaced. Ben Freeman at Bentune talks of real world experience and the increase in DOD lifter failures, trucks being the major culprit. In the quest to meet government EPA regs they are building motors prone to failure. Do you think any manufacture would have DOD and AFM if there was another way of meeting guidelines. On another topic on over regulations CA better prepare themself for $8+ gasoline in 2026 because of CA regulations two more refineries are shutting down and that accounts for 20% of their gasoline usage. Another example of government over reach.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by dpevans

So in the last 5 decades how often do you hear of lifter failure, pre DOD is was pretty rare, today even if 1 out of 1,000 fail that's too much. Read too many stories guys are pushing their motors at the track and the engine develops a misfire due to lifter failure. If you never track it or push the motor you probably won't have issues. It's even a problem on Toyota and Hyundia motors, my nephew has one in the shop right now getting the motor replaced. Ben Freeman at Bentune talks of real world experience and the increase in DOD lifter failures, trucks being the major culprit. In the quest to meet government EPA regs they are building motors prone to failure. Do you think any manufacture would have DOD and AFM if there was another way of meeting guidelines. On another topic on over regulations CA better prepare themself for $8+ gasoline in 2026 because of CA regulations two more refineries are shutting down and that accounts for 20% of their gasoline usage. Another example of government over reach.

EPA regulations are being rolled back by a decade or two, so manufacturers will now have a better chance. Ford is scrapping their EV Lightning truck, too.

However, we can't discuss these things here, a moderator will soon threaten us with thread closure.

[dpevans]

It's not a fed EPA roll back in regs it's CA reg. these refineries cannot supply the quality of gasoline CA is requiring. Retrofitting the refineries would be in the billions and it's not viable. Sorry CA guys but the cost of your premium is going to skyrocket.

[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by dpevans

So in the last 5 decades how often do you hear of lifter failure, pre DOD is was pretty rare, today even if 1 out of 1,000 fail that's too much. Read too many stories guys are pushing their motors at the track and the engine develops a misfire due to lifter failure. If you never track it or push the motor you probably won't have issues. It's even a problem on Toyota and Hyundia motors, my nephew has one in the shop right now getting the motor replaced. Ben Freeman at Bentune talks of real world experience and the increase in DOD lifter failures, trucks being the major culprit. In the quest to meet government EPA regs they are building motors prone to failure. Do you think any manufacture would have DOD and AFM if there was another way of meeting guidelines. On another topic on over regulations CA better prepare themself for $8+ gasoline in 2026 because of CA regulations two more refineries are shutting down and that accounts for 20% of their gasoline usage. Another example of government over reach.

Lifter failure on pushrod motors has actually always been a thing that happens. Of course adding AFM made it more prevalent but the MAIN problem with lifter failure is where the lifters moved too. Pre-LS days lifter failure wasn’t a major repair at all. It was cheap to replace. You used to just be able to pop the intake manifold off and replace the culprit/all of them. No one bitched about replacing them since it was cheap.

Some genius in 97 (well before that since the engine I’m sure was in development for a few years) decided to move the location of the lifters to under the cylinder heads. NOW it’s a big deal/cost to replace lifters as that significantly increases the cost. Same thing happened over at dodge, just not sure when.