Possible lifter noise?

[lmoengnr]

maybe 15-20k km's

Tube headers usually amplify any engine noise.

 

[Andrew Daniels]

Hi guys, ended up being all the lifters were gone and had unfortunately damaged the cam. I had no choice but to upgrade the lifters and cam. Please note that the lifter noises ended up getting a lot worse but the regular oil changes prolonged the life of the lifters

 

[Pollushon]

Hi guys, ended up being all the lifters were gone and had unfortunately damaged the cam. I had no choice but to upgrade the lifters and cam. Please note that the lifter noises ended up getting a lot worse but the regular oil changes prolonged the life of the lifters

That's exactly what I'd say to my wife if I had one. Oh and "honey I had to replace the air pump too"

 

[VCoz]

Why should common manufacturing failures, often seen in the USA and Australia even when under warranty get passed on to the next owner where remedy from the manufacturer in Australia is very unlikely. RACQ 'Holden Roadside Assist' report - 'Engine noise after start sounds like a tappet oil is ok water OK it's been an ongoing problem vehicle is still under warranty advised member vehicle is not drivable in this condition tappet noise is louder than most. Advise member to seek legal advice if they want warranty and have been denied.'
Holden Australia vehicles now operates under a new name: beware GMANZ found the following approach was successful under Australian Consumer Law when forced into a Tribunal: first control evidence and what dealers report and then in sworn submission deceive the Tribunal - i.e. that 'The engine noise concern has been inspected by two authorised Holden Service Outlets, GMANZ field representative and QCAT appointed assessor which they have all determined that the engine is not making any unusual noises' even though the first Holden Dealer applied in writing to GMANZ for a preplacement engine, and the second independently sought GMANZ for major engine repairs and reimbursement ‘to carry out the replacement of the lifters and the camshaft $5350.35 including parts and labour’ - that dealers experienced LS3 technician described the noise as a "hell of a racket" (which submitted video confirmed) - stating "definitely needs lifters". GMANZ field represented reportedly first verbally approve the repair then conducted a 'test' seen on dash cam footage as a sham. The QCAT appointed assessor conducted the test in conditions it would not be heard but found one recommended one major fault required MyLink replacement (Holden agreed with assessor but made its $2000+ repair conditional on my withdrawal of the higher cost engine fault claim from QCAT. Not as expected of ACL nor what I expected from GM Manufacturer Warranty? Will I ever buy another GM product - definitely NOT.
Fight for what is right and expected under law? ... fighting some of Australia's biggest corporations is a costly waste of time in a Tribunal that does not need to comply with procedural and legislated obligations, and legislation stated it need not consider the evidence before it and can make a decision any way it sees fit. Under the QCAT Act Sect 216 ‘False or misleading information’ is supposed to have consequences - it did not. When QCAT also violate the QCAT Act it is deemed as above accountability due to self-monitoring and alleged independence - the Queensland Attorney General confirms reply following QCAT demonstrated violations under Queensland law by its Tribunal is not acted on since 'the Attorney General cannot direct QCAT to the exercise of its jurisdiction'.
So, it seems protections do exist for those with power and influence, as they can operate above the law with total immunity. Be aware that Queensland's QCAT interpretation of Australian Consumer Law (ACL) as it stated in Hearing/reasons can be a sham while it adjudicates 'If you can start your car, travel between point A and B without it breaking down and stop the car then there is no major fault under ACL'.
That is not protections under Australian Consumer Law particularly when the vehicle has done less than 40k, been serviced as required by its own Holden dealers and is under full factory Warrantee!!!

 

[losh1971]

Pretty annoying that the same lifters used in an LS were used 25 years ago and those 25 year old lifters could easily do 400k without damaging the cam. Something seriously went wrong and is it just an AFM thing or is there a problem with the manufacturing quality? I mean how many LS engines have 400k and are still running the original lifters?

 

[krusing]

I have lift tick in my L77,
And had it since I purchased it in 2013, at 17,000 k’s.
Being it was still under warranty,
I mentioned it a few times when I was getting it serviced, and got told that was normal for a L77 with AFM.

I must admit, it did sound louder when the turtle shell was on the motor,
But when I removed it, and wasn’t so loud.

 

[Skylarking]

Why should common manufacturing failures, often seen in the USA and Australia even when under warranty get passed on to the next owner where remedy from the manufacturer in Australia is very unlikely. RACQ 'Holden Roadside Assist' report - 'Engine noise after start sounds like a tappet oil is ok water OK it's been an ongoing problem vehicle is still under warranty advised member vehicle is not drivable in this condition tappet noise is louder than most. Advise member to seek legal advice if they want warranty and have been denied.'
Holden Australia vehicles now operates under a new name: beware GMANZ found the following approach was successful under Australian Consumer Law when forced into a Tribunal: first control evidence and what dealers report and then in sworn submission deceive the Tribunal - i.e. that 'The engine noise concern has been inspected by two authorised Holden Service Outlets, GMANZ field representative and QCAT appointed assessor which they have all determined that the engine is not making any unusual noises' even though the first Holden Dealer applied in writing to GMANZ for a preplacement engine, and the second independently sought GMANZ for major engine repairs and reimbursement ‘to carry out the replacement of the lifters and the camshaft $5350.35 including parts and labour’ - that dealers experienced LS3 technician described the noise as a "hell of a racket" (which submitted video confirmed) - stating "definitely needs lifters". GMANZ field represented reportedly first verbally approve the repair then conducted a 'test' seen on dash cam footage as a sham. The QCAT appointed assessor conducted the test in conditions it would not be heard but found one recommended one major fault required MyLink replacement (Holden agreed with assessor but made its $2000+ repair conditional on my withdrawal of the higher cost engine fault claim from QCAT. Not as expected of ACL nor what I expected from GM Manufacturer Warranty? Will I ever buy another GM product - definitely NOT.
Fight for what is right and expected under law? ... fighting some of Australia's biggest corporations is a costly waste of time in a Tribunal that does not need to comply with procedural and legislated obligations, and legislation stated it need not consider the evidence before it and can make a decision any way it sees fit. Under the QCAT Act Sect 216 ‘False or misleading information’ is supposed to have consequences - it did not. When QCAT also violate the QCAT Act it is deemed as above accountability due to self-monitoring and alleged independence - the Queensland Attorney General confirms reply following QCAT demonstrated violations under Queensland law by its Tribunal is not acted on since 'the Attorney General cannot direct QCAT to the exercise of its jurisdiction'.
So, it seems protections do exist for those with power and influence, as they can operate above the law with total immunity. Be aware that Queensland's QCAT interpretation of Australian Consumer Law (ACL) as it stated in Hearing/reasons can be a sham while it adjudicates 'If you can start your car, travel between point A and B without it breaking down and stop the car then there is no major fault under ACL'.
That is not protections under Australian Consumer Law particularly when the vehicle has done less than 40k, been serviced as required by its own Holden dealers and is under full factory Warrantee!!!

Presumably that means you’ve lost your claim?
That’s rather disappointing that QCAT doesn’t follow law.

I thought QCAT decisions could be appealed via a QCAT internal process and then to the state supremacy court which I’d expect must consider the evidence (or appealed to the Australian high court of given its a federal bit of legislation)?

Seems the big boys get you via the old adage In for a penny in for a pound, and then claim costs cause you had the gaul to challenge them

 

[VCoz]

Presumably that means you’ve lost your claim?
That’s rather disappointing that QCAT doesn’t follow law.

I thought QCAT decisions could be appealed via a QCAT internal process and then to the state supremacy court which I’d expect must consider the evidence (or appealed to the Australian high court of given its a federal bit of legislation)?

Seems the big boys get you via the old adage In for a penny in for a pound, and then claim costs cause you had the gaul to challenge them

Sorry it was a long journey - a final word on an Australian Consumer Law saga concludes with a light shined on QCAT- the matter has been widely raised elsewhere. QCAT self-review is a farce, a system designed to deny justice in a way that makes the final Supreme Court challenge unaffordable and often exceeding the value of the vehicle in question (case law provides good reasons not to go down that self-review to a costly legal path). Despite my provision of substantial cogent evidence in submissions, including made to the ACCC (which can't look at QCAT or individual cases), it demonstrated how both case respondents can get away with refusing to provide reports or evidence to QCAT, by citing GM proprietary information protection. That included refusal to disclose what had been done to our car. This QCAT charade continued for over 12 months and resembled something more akin to a Kangaroo Court than a legitimate legal process.

The dismissal of our application came as a shock to many, including the ACCC and QOFT (who requested the reasons). It felt like an experience one might expect from a Kangaroo Court, with the decision-maker demonstrating a lack of understanding of the relevant laws, vehicle issues, and technicalities required to make such decisions. Furthermore, the selection of this decision-maker violated the QCAT Act, ignored natural justice procedure requirements, disregarded QCAT's own assessor's findings (findings agreed upon by all parties and who had paid $1200 for the inspection); a finding based on one Members criterion as simplistic as determining if our vehicle could start, drive without breaking down, and stop on a day of his choosing, claiming under which the Australian Consumer Law's Major fault clause would not apply. If other tribunals want to abuse it this decision set a dangerous precedent for manufacturers to evade warranty claims - it would not work in a real Court of law.

During the hearing, I had to explain to the 'decision-maker' that "MyLink" referred to the dashboard screen system, similar to a smartphone interface on its side with icons to control various vehicle features. When these MyLink icons malfunctioned, it meant that the corresponding vehicle features were not working as advertised and required (includes safety features). The decision-maker clearly failed to grasp the technical details of 2 major faults claims, this and one which included our engine problems, with the Member in Reasons making a point of the term "piston flat" instead of the correct term "piston slap." 'Piston Flat' was a term he wrongly claimed had been mentioned in submissions or statements (not stated by any party). This demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the file and matters before him - I believe he should not have been selected to decide on a matter he did not have experience in or understand and should have removed himself when realising that fundamental requirement under the QCAT Act will not be met by his appointment to decide this case.

This QCAT case also demonstrated that the conflict of interests'/collaboration between a dealer and the manufacturer should be recognised as a huge risk to consumer protection, particularly when two of Australia's largest corporations can act with complicity against a consumer. The respondent/major Australian dealership that held our vehicle for over 45 days during a warranty period continued following the case to refuse to explain what work was performed in its workshop on our vehicle (denied without legal action and a subpoena). They also failed to clarify why they, against our written and verbal wishes, disassembled our vehicle compromising our pending QCAT hearing and why I was expected to pay for reassembly following this unauthorized disassembly. Moreover, the major dealership refused to specify if parts were changed/replace, raising questions about their transparency and integrity. GMANZ claimed there was no noise heard yet were aware/party to the dealership disassembly and reassembly of engine components (resulting in oil leaks) and the engine disassembly (verbally acknowledged by the technician involved). My finding: submitted evidence has no value when QCAT choose not to look at it.

The cost of appealing within QCAT again the numerous errors of law/procedure committed by QCAT would likely exceed $2500, a further cost which we deemed unwise as demonstrated by other cases. A previous 2019 review of the QCAT Act highlighted that QCAT should rectify its errors of the type seen in my case, rather than burdening the applicant with an appeal (the Act now states that legislated requirement QCAT demonstrated it chose to ignore). Australian Consumer Law was made ineffective in my case simply by QCAT not considering the evidence before it (the ACCC was clearly very surprised by the dismissal). 'More than disappointing' is that QCAT appears to be a protected entity that can violate the laws it operates under. The lack of transparency equated to a lack of accountability and a disregard for the Rule of Law suggests to me it's an unsafe place if justice is sought.

I have reported the procedural errors and non-compliance issues to the Queensland Attorney General/Premier about its QCAT (rhetoric is that QCAT operates independently - ha-ha!). When Queensland laws are broken by QCAT, it appears they are untouchable. I am currently widely advocating for during the upcoming mandatory review of the QCAT Act in Queensland, that review must this time include a close examination of QCAT's performance re how it administers Queensland Acts: my submissions to the DJAG self-review will highlight there is an urgent need for major reform particularly for decisions over Guardianship matters that impact on vulnerable citizens' human rights, wellbeing and their legal say in their own lives, matters that must be decided only in a real Court of Law. Until that happens no-one in Queensland is safe/protected by the laws of this State that QCAT administers. Please note tribunal CAT's operate in all States and Territories.