Chevrolet also has the same issues. I think you are confusing two issues. One being the issue with Chrysler and their sloppy machining of the tops of the lifter bores, and the second being the inherent inability of the internal hydraulics being able to handle the aggressive roller lobes.
I've never heard of the method IQ mentioned. I can see that helping with stability some way. Reducing the oil cavity must (in my thinking) help control the hydraulics.
As I've posted before, there was more than one reason I grew to hate those lifters.
One was (at the time...Chris Straub has told me on the phone in very pointed language it's different now) in order to control the valve train as the RPM goes up you had to run 20w50 oil. I stopped using that crap in the early 1990's. If you didn't, right about peak torque you start to see the engine get unhappy. It would get through that and then get wacko again as you go past about 6k. The heavy oil helped that a bunch.
But...you lose oil control because you have to open up the clearance for that thick goop. And so it goes.
They tell me now the new lifters are made with much more precise machining so you don't need that heavy oil. That may be. But that didn't address the rest of the issues with them.
I'm not sure why so many guys are not wanting solid lifters. IDK if it's they don't want to do lash, don't know how to do it or what. It's not hard. I check my lash once a year. Maybe. And that's only because I guilt trip myself into it.
This coming from a guy who was check lash every pass on my race car. Once a year is like goldbricking to me.
