What makes morel lifters superior to ls7s?
02-04-2015, 02:37 PM
#41
I wonder who most of those went to. 
We really like this lifter and have actually taken some other brands of popular drop in lifters out along with OEM lifters and replaced them with these and seen 5-15rwhp increases in power across the board from idle to redline.
When the valve is allowed to do what the lobe is actually commanding it to do, good things usually happen!
We really like this lifter and have actually taken some other brands of popular drop in lifters out along with OEM lifters and replaced them with these and seen 5-15rwhp increases in power across the board from idle to redline.
When the valve is allowed to do what the lobe is actually commanding it to do, good things usually happen!
02-04-2015, 05:55 PM
#42
The above statement sums it up pretty much.
If the cam is not allowed to operate around its designed parameters a loss in power will occur.
Once the cam is allowed to operate around its designed parameters, meaning full lift and duration is transferred to the valve, more power will be made as a result.
02-04-2015, 06:00 PM
#43
TECH Resident
And to add another twist to this discussion: is there any situation where LS7 lifters would prove "safe" or "appropriate" to use? Say in a street setup, where revving above 7,000 would be unlikely?
Or are we saying LS7 lifters are still not what we should be reaching for?
Or are we saying LS7 lifters are still not what we should be reaching for?
Last edited by wayland1985; 02-04-2015 at 06:00 PM. Reason: Beat me to it...
02-05-2015, 10:06 AM
#44
And to add another twist to this discussion: is there any situation where LS7 lifters would prove "safe" or "appropriate" to use? Say in a street setup, where revving above 7,000 would be unlikely?
Or are we saying LS7 lifters are still not what we should be reaching for?
Or are we saying LS7 lifters are still not what we should be reaching for?
02-05-2015, 05:55 PM
#47
Let's be objective and thoughful here.
If the LS7 lifters genuinely had a high failure rate the warranty costs to GM would be staggering. I am sure some fail, hell everything mechanical has some failure rate, but if the percentage was high it would be cheaper for GM to put Morels in than it would be to warranty any meaningful percentage.
If the LS7 lifters genuinely had a high failure rate the warranty costs to GM would be staggering. I am sure some fail, hell everything mechanical has some failure rate, but if the percentage was high it would be cheaper for GM to put Morels in than it would be to warranty any meaningful percentage.
02-05-2015, 06:06 PM
#49
02-05-2015, 06:25 PM
#50
TECH Resident
Let's be objective and thoughful here.
If the LS7 lifters genuinely had a high failure rate the warranty costs to GM would be staggering. I am sure some fail, hell everything mechanical has some failure rate, but if the percentage was high it would be cheaper for GM to put Morels in than it would be to warranty any meaningful percentage.
If the LS7 lifters genuinely had a high failure rate the warranty costs to GM would be staggering. I am sure some fail, hell everything mechanical has some failure rate, but if the percentage was high it would be cheaper for GM to put Morels in than it would be to warranty any meaningful percentage.
Ls7 lifters are direct replacement for ls1 lifters no? So you wouldn't expect them turning in the tray (assuming the trays were replaced with the lifter)....
Although, if Martin is correct, it would almost seem as if the cost of Morel drop-ins would be worth the added cost in horsepower alone.
Would the morels also have any reason to be quieter than LS7 lifters?
02-05-2015, 06:41 PM
#51
A leakdown rate better suited to performance cam/springs could quiet them and if an extra $100 gets you 10 hp and quieter, it is worth every penny.
Still though a little bit of common sense goes a long ways when considering just how prevalent LS7 lifter failures are. They are a production piece in millions of vehicles, can't be all that bad.
Still though a little bit of common sense goes a long ways when considering just how prevalent LS7 lifter failures are. They are a production piece in millions of vehicles, can't be all that bad.
02-06-2015, 07:32 AM
#52
Let's be objective and thoughful here.
If the LS7 lifters genuinely had a high failure rate the warranty costs to GM would be staggering. I am sure some fail, hell everything mechanical has some failure rate, but if the percentage was high it would be cheaper for GM to put Morels in than it would be to warranty any meaningful percentage.
If the LS7 lifters genuinely had a high failure rate the warranty costs to GM would be staggering. I am sure some fail, hell everything mechanical has some failure rate, but if the percentage was high it would be cheaper for GM to put Morels in than it would be to warranty any meaningful percentage.
02-06-2015, 07:48 AM
#53
What spring pressure, rockers & lobe with this failure? Also what is your current set up if you don't mind?
I just recently made a cam change from a LSK lobe & upped the open seat to around 450-460lbs. The new lobe is softer but valve train is louder most likely due to increased seat pressure & my LS7 lifters. Comp cam as well
Within about 1" of pulling the heads & making the lifter change, I really like the larger wheel lifters.
02-06-2015, 08:03 AM
#54
What spring pressure, rockers & lobe with this failure? Also what is your current set up if you don't mind?
I just recently made a cam change from a LSK lobe & upped the open seat to around 450-460lbs. The new lobe is softer but valve train is louder most likely due to increased seat pressure & my LS7 lifters. Comp cam as well
Within about 1" of pulling the heads & making the lifter change, I really like the larger wheel lifters.
I just recently made a cam change from a LSK lobe & upped the open seat to around 450-460lbs. The new lobe is softer but valve train is louder most likely due to increased seat pressure & my LS7 lifters. Comp cam as well
Within about 1" of pulling the heads & making the lifter change, I really like the larger wheel lifters.
New setup is Morel Drop ins, Bullet .650 .650 238/248, still stock rockers and PAC-1206X springs. I am also running 243 heads with the Z06 valves.
Here is what the valve train looked like with stock rockers .650 lift and 20K miles.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...-pictures.html
Like I said, I do not know if the chicken or egg came first. Needless to say I am not chancing either this go around.
02-06-2015, 09:24 AM
#55
I would agree with stock cam, springs, etc. Once you ramp up the spring forces, RPM and cam lobe aggressiveness, and then drop the lifter lower in the bore all bets are off and I don't think GM would warranty that situation. The LS7 lifter simply wasn't designed for that situation. Not saying it will always fail, but you are are asking a lot of a part that wasn't designed for these types of installation.
We ask a whole lot more of the entire motor than GM intended. I have taken stock GM shortblocks to nearly double the HP and 1500rpm over the factory redline, NA and look what folks do on boost......
IMO many folks would be better off reusing original lifters rather than the blind faith in the "LS7" lifter just because it was used in the LS7. The LS7 lifter spawned a lot of needless lifter replacement all because someone realized a part used in that motor fit in older motors. Combine that with the fact it was cheap and everyone jumped on the bandwagon without any thought as to why.
I have seen LS7 lifters outlast the Comp Cam under them in daily driver use even when it was all beat to hell because springs were left unchanged too long.
You don't hear about success though only failure.
02-06-2015, 12:15 PM
#56
12 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Seeing as we're sharing pictures may I submit these. You will notice not the usual damaged roller as in other pictures but witness marks of there the pin on a "Street" Lunati (Morel) came out, jammed in the bore and snapped the roller off at start up. The engine never was spun above 6,500 RPM. Lunati tech support said I shouldn't have had it that high and offered no other explanation.
The rest of the lifter is still in the bore. The other thing that you may notice is that the casting of the body shattered rather than broke off or deformed due to the brittle cast body. There is a piece of it laying next to an opposing lifter. That lifter also has a shattered piece on the side partially obscured by the roller jamming that one in from when the original broken roller came around and struck it. On removal the bodies could be shattered with the strike of a hammer. Higher end use billet bodies.
The rest of the lifter is still in the bore. The other thing that you may notice is that the casting of the body shattered rather than broke off or deformed due to the brittle cast body. There is a piece of it laying next to an opposing lifter. That lifter also has a shattered piece on the side partially obscured by the roller jamming that one in from when the original broken roller came around and struck it. On removal the bodies could be shattered with the strike of a hammer. Higher end use billet bodies.
02-09-2015, 11:57 AM
#57
Seeing as we're sharing pictures may I submit these. You will notice not the usual damaged roller as in other pictures but witness marks of there the pin on a "Street" Lunati (Morel) came out, jammed in the bore and snapped the roller off at start up. The engine never was spun above 6,500 RPM. Lunati tech support said I shouldn't have had it that high and offered no other explanation.
The rest of the lifter is still in the bore. The other thing that you may notice is that the casting of the body shattered rather than broke off or deformed due to the brittle cast body. There is a piece of it laying next to an opposing lifter. That lifter also has a shattered piece on the side partially obscured by the roller jamming that one in from when the original broken roller came around and struck it. On removal the bodies could be shattered with the strike of a hammer. Higher end use billet bodies.
The rest of the lifter is still in the bore. The other thing that you may notice is that the casting of the body shattered rather than broke off or deformed due to the brittle cast body. There is a piece of it laying next to an opposing lifter. That lifter also has a shattered piece on the side partially obscured by the roller jamming that one in from when the original broken roller came around and struck it. On removal the bodies could be shattered with the strike of a hammer. Higher end use billet bodies.
Up until Jan of 2014 Morel had swedged axle on the Street series lifters. This is the same as the OEM mfg and many other lifter brands The street lifters were designed for mild cam applications, BUT the lifters were being sold with cam profiles that were just too aggressive. Since Morel could not stop this from happening they made the decision to use the wire loc retention system that is used on the high end lifters. This change was made last year and all lifters assembled on or after Jan 2014 had the the upgraded axle assembly. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THE LIFTER NEEDS TO GO ON AGGRESSIVE LOBE PROFILES. The lifter is still designed for mild lobe profiles. The upgrade is just to help prevent the axle from "walking" out of the body. The reason it walks is because the bouncing. The LS platform does enjoy a large cam core a light valve train so it has a large advantage over most pushrod engines but for aggressive cams and power adder applications I would recommend the Ultra Pro Series.
02-09-2015, 12:14 PM
#58
TECH Veteran
For 60 bucks more the 5315s from morel would be the best option over a LS7 lifter without breaking the bank...... 60 bucks could later save time, save a cam, save money and a headache.
