Yellow Bullet Forums banner

Morel or Isky 0.937" Lifters

6.5K views 19 replies 9 participants last post by  star393  
#1 ·
Looking at buying a set of Solid Roller lifters to suit a Dart LS Next block, plan is to open the lifter bores up to take a 0.937" lifter as I want maximum lifter wheel diameter.

I'm looking at a lifters with a 0.180" offset on both the intake and exhuast and probably also bushing style.

Should I go Morel or Isky? I know Isky do the double offset off the shelf, I haven't been able to find a double offset morel.
 
#5 ·
The issues with the Isky sizing is what has stopped me pulling the trigger on them thus far.
 
#6 ·
some people have had no trouble with Isky lifters and others have.

ive read Isky have made sets good when sent back, but for us in Australia, its cost prohibitive.


I emailed twice about my set and never got a response. Cannot be bothered chasing it up anymore.


If given those choices, id get the Morel's
 
#7 ·
The solid body Jessels are not a great deal more expensive than Isky's. Was just keen on a bushing style as the combo will see some street miles and ide rather a bushing to start to wear instead of a heap of needles ending up in the pan.
 
#10 ·
Morel will make then but in an double offset like this, your better off with up to a 7 degree angle and using centered then you are with a double offset. Even with a bushing on a larger wheel and axle your opposing offsets side load the lifters and is always in the opposite direction. Wear on these will be greater than an on centered lifter.

All of Morel's .937" stuff is Bushing. It is also a full bodied lifter design with an port instead of an oil band. The more surface area you have the more stable the lifter is. Also in this case with the offset...more surface area is even more important.
 
#17 ·
The ones I have are and ive heard it from others too.


maybe they've picked up there game recently. the ones I have are dated 2010.




I bought Jesel instead.
I am really surprised that joints like Isky and heard of same complaints from others that they cant keep sets within .001. That's turning or grinding and should be within .0002 easy. I am not impressed by them results either. Our stampings are less then .001 in a lot of cases. My big complaint is lifter body surface area. I hate lifters that use the body slot cut to transfer oil from lifter to lifter along the lifter oil galley. That takes surface area away from the lifter bore and at high spring pressures eats up a lifter bore in a hurry. Some lifter designs get it and keep the thrust sides of the lifter whole and use the non thrust sides to transfer oil. This design greatly helps lifter bore surface contact area and helps a lot at high spring pressures. A lot of arguments arise about the 842 lifter being to small to survive but I have diff. believes in that argument. The biggest problem is total lifter body bore contact when the lifter is on the basic circle of the cam and you guys know the more lift desired the smaller the basic circle so therefore the lifter sinks down the bore and out the bottom leaving the top .250 of the bore unused because with a lifter made with a taller lifter body can't be found without the carved out circle oil slot taken away from lifter bore support. It took me along time to find someone that does make the lifter with a tall lifter body by atleast another .200 and beside that he will make lifters in oversize to .845 in .001 increments. I believe he,s just getting around to making .904,s and .don't know about .937,s yet. You guys might want to think about this. You can fix and tighten up lifter clearances with out the costly bushing deal and for badly beat up bore theres the .875.
Sure the 904 and 937 is better more surface area but there also still short on the height. So why in hell do all these know it alls in places of manufacturing making the wrong stuff yet 45 years later.