Super-Ingenuity (SPI)

CNC Machining & Injection Molding — DFM/Moldflow Support, CMM Inspection, Prototype to Production Solutions.

ISO 9001 & IATF 16949 CERTIFIED
+(86) 0769 8166 7180 / [email protected]
24h Quote · Free DFM/Moldflow Feedback · CMM Inspection Reports · Global Shipping
Get Instant Quote

CAD Ready: STEP, IGES, STL supported

POM and nylon molded gears bushings and sliding parts for material review
Engineering Decision Support

POM vs Nylon for Gears and Bushings: Acetal vs Nylon Material Guide

Choosing between POM, acetal and nylon for injection molded gears, bushings and sliding parts depends on friction, wear, moisture absorption, creep, dimensional stability, tolerance and assembly fit. This guide compares POM vs Nylon for gears, bushings, rollers, sliding blocks and precision functional parts before mold steel cut, with focus on low-friction fit, wear behavior, moisture-driven dimensional change and supplier-side DFM checks.

Engineering Quick Answer

POM, also called acetal, is often the better starting point for low-friction gears, bushings, sliding parts and precision functional components that need low moisture absorption and stable dimensions. Nylon is often better when the part needs toughness, impact resistance, snap-fit strain capacity, flexible functional features or higher load-bearing strength. For tight-fit molded parts, the final choice should be confirmed with wear review, creep review, moisture exposure review, gear pitch or bushing ID checks, shaft-fit review, tolerance feasibility, CMM method, fixture validation and supplier-side DFM before tooling. Use the Injection Molding Material Selection Matrix for broader resin screening. Use the PA6 vs PA66 vs Glass-Filled Nylon guide only when the decision has narrowed to nylon grades.

Quick Decision Table: POM vs Nylon for Gears, Bushings and Precision Fit Parts

Material Selection Factors for Sliding Fit, Wear and Moisture Stability

POM vs Nylon Comparison for Gears, Bushings and Sliding Parts
Material Selection Factor POM / Acetal Nylon
Primary decision role Low friction, wear resistance and dimensional stability Toughness, impact resistance, snap-fit strain and load capacity
Common molded parts Gears, bushings, rollers, sliding blocks, precision functional parts Clips, brackets, housings, wear parts, load-bearing features
Friction behavior Usually lower friction for sliding contact Higher friction in many applications, grade-dependent
Wear resistance Strong candidate for sliding wear and gear contact Can perform well, but moisture, load and grade matter
Moisture absorption Low Higher
Dimensional stability Usually better when humidity affects fit More sensitive to moisture and conditioning
Precision tolerance risk Lower risk for moisture-driven fit change Higher risk when tight fit or CTQ dimensions are moisture-sensitive
Creep under load Review long-term load, service temperature, wall thickness and functional fit drift Review long-term load, service temperature, wall thickness and functional fit drift
Impact toughness Moderate, application-dependent Often stronger for impact and flexible features
Snap-fit behavior Usually less forgiving for repeated strain Often better for clips and flexible snap-fit features
Surface finish Usually smooth and stable Unfilled nylon can be smooth; reinforced nylon may show texture
Chemical exposure Screen selected grade against oil, grease, cleaner, solvent or unknown service chemicals Screen selected grade against oil, grease, cleaner, solvent or unknown service chemicals
Main reason to choose Low friction, stable fit, low moisture absorption Toughness, strength, impact resistance, flexible function
Main reason to avoid High impact, high heat, chemical uncertainty or creep under load Tight tolerance drift under moisture or conditioning

The table is an early screening guide. Final selection still depends on the exact resin grade, wall thickness, gate location, load condition, moisture exposure, gear pitch, bushing ID, shaft-fit test, CMM method or fixture validation.

Fast rule: Choose POM / acetal when low friction, wear resistance and stable fit are the main concerns. Choose nylon when toughness, impact resistance, snap-fit strain or structural load capacity matters more than moisture-driven dimensional stability. For tight-fit gears, bushings or sliding parts, confirm gear pitch, bushing ID, shaft fit, wear condition and inspection method before tooling.

Use the Injection Molding Material Selection Matrix to compare base resin properties before narrowing the choice to POM, acetal or nylon. Use the PA6 vs PA66 vs Glass-Filled Nylon guide when the decision has narrowed from POM vs Nylon to nylon grade selection.

POM gears bushings rollers and sliding parts for wear review

When POM Is the Better Choice for Gears, Bushings and Sliding Parts

POM is often selected for gears, bushings and sliding parts when low friction, wear behavior, gear pitch stability, bushing ID control and moisture-stable fit are more important than impact strain. For close-tolerance sliding features, non-lubricated contact or shaft-fit assemblies, POM should still be checked for selected grade, shrinkage, gate location, wall thickness, creep under load and CMM or fixture inspection before tooling.

POM / Acetal for Low Friction and Wear Resistance

POM is often selected for molded mechanical parts that need low friction, stable sliding contact and predictable wear behavior. In a POM vs Nylon decision, POM is usually the better candidate when the part relies on smooth sliding, stable contact, low noise or predictable fit after molding. POM should not be approved only because it is known as a low-friction material; supplier-side DFM should still review wall thickness, gate location, shrinkage, molded roundness, gear pitch, bushing ID, contact surface finish, creep under load and inspection method before tooling.

POM for Moisture-Sensitive Precision Fit

POM usually absorbs less moisture than nylon, which makes it useful for precision functional parts where humidity exposure can affect assembly fit after molding. For gears, bushings and sliding parts, lower moisture absorption can help reduce changes in gear pitch, shaft fit, hole position, roundness and datum alignment after molding. This does not mean every tight-tolerance part should use POM. The supplier should confirm the selected POM grade, shrinkage behavior, wall thickness, gate design, tolerance stack-up, gear gauge plan, shaft-fit test, CMM method and fixture validation before tooling approval.

POM for Gears, Bushings, Rollers and Sliding Blocks

POM is commonly considered for molded mechanical parts such as:

  • precision gears;
  • small gear trains;
  • bushings;
  • rollers;
  • low-friction guides;
  • sliding blocks;
  • actuator parts;
  • tight-fit functional housings;
  • wear pads or mechanical contact parts.

For these parts, the key approval items should match the function: gear gauge and roundness for gears, bushing ID and shaft-fit test for bushings, surface finish and wear condition for sliding blocks, and CMM or fixture validation for tight-fit functional housings.

Nylon snap-fit clips brackets and load-bearing parts for functional review

When Nylon Performs Better for Tough Functional Parts

Nylon is often the better choice when the molded part needs toughness, impact resistance, snap-fit strain, flexible functional features or load-bearing strength more than low moisture absorption. Before tooling, confirm the nylon grade, wall thickness, clip-root radius, snap-fit strain, load direction, moisture exposure, conditioning plan and T0/T1 assembly validation.

Nylon for Toughness, Impact and Snap-Fit Strain

Nylon often performs better than POM when the molded part needs toughness, impact resistance or repeated strain. For clips, flexible arms, snap-fit features, impact-loaded housings and structural brackets, nylon may be more practical than POM because it can support more forgiving deformation behavior in many designs.

The supplier should check exact nylon grade, wall thickness, clip-root radius, snap-fit strain, load direction, moisture exposure, conditioning plan and T0/T1 assembly validation before tooling.

Nylon for Load-Bearing Parts Where Moisture Drift Is Acceptable

Nylon may be more suitable when the part needs load-bearing strength, heat resistance or impact durability, and the design can tolerate moisture-related dimensional change in CTQ dimensions, datum features or assembly fit. After nylon is selected as the material family, PA66 may be considered where heat resistance is important, while reinforced nylon may be considered where stiffness and creep resistance are required.

For load-bearing nylon parts, dimensional approval should include wall thickness, load condition, CTQ dimensions, datum strategy, conditioning plan, post-conditioning measurement, CMM report or fixture validation coordinated via the professional Tolerance Feasibility Guide. If glass-filled nylon is considered, review Moldflow fiber orientation, directional warpage, tool steel, mold wear area, surface texture, flatness fixture and CMM datum method before tooling.

Use this section only to decide whether nylon is a better candidate than POM for tough functional parts

If the material family has already been narrowed to nylon, use the PA6 vs PA66 vs Glass-Filled Nylon guide to compare unfilled and reinforced nylon options before tooling.

Keep nylon in scope when the part needs:

  • higher toughness and cyclic impact energy distributions;
  • forgiving snap-fit strain tolerances during manual installations;
  • under-hood operating continuous heat thresholds (primarily via raw PA66 metrics);
  • structural reinforcement options utilizing specialized compound additives.
POM and nylon gears bushings measured for moisture wear and fit validation

Moisture Absorption vs Wear Performance in POM vs Nylon

Moisture absorption and wear performance should be reviewed separately when comparing POM vs Nylon for gears, bushings, sliding parts and precision-fit assemblies. This section shows how humidity, contact wear, bushing ID, gear pitch, shaft fit, CMM method and fixture validation affect the final material choice before tooling.

Why POM Usually Holds Dimensions Better Under Humidity

Moisture absorption is a primary risk in POM vs Nylon decisions for gears, bushings and tight-fit assemblies. Nylon can absorb moisture after molding and during service, which can change dimensions, stiffness and assembly fit and may require post-conditioning measurement.

For a bushing, the ID may shift and should be checked with ID measurement or shaft-fit testing. For a gear, pitch or roundness may be affected and should be checked with gear gauge or CMM inspection. For a precision functional housing, hole position or datum alignment may move enough to affect assembly. To track these parameters before tool release, crosscheck material specs against variables inside the Plastic Shrinkage Rate Table by Resin.

Why Nylon Can Still Perform Well in Wear Parts

Nylon should not be rejected automatically for wear applications, especially when the wear part also needs toughness, impact resistance or load-bearing strength. In some load-bearing or impact-sensitive wear parts, nylon may perform well because toughness and strength matter more than low moisture absorption.

The final result depends on grade, conditioning state, load, speed, contact pressure, wear condition, surface finish, mating material and lubrication assumptions. For sliding parts, the supplier should compare POM vs Nylon using the actual contact condition instead of relying only on datasheet values. The DFM review should include wear surface geometry, wall thickness, gate location, weld line position, shaft or mating surface, tolerance method and inspection plan verified via the formal Tolerance Feasibility Guide protocols.

Supplier Checks for Moisture, Wear and Sliding Fit

Before tooling approval, match the supplier checks to the actual moisture exposure, sliding contact, gear function, bushing fit and tolerance risk. Request the following supplier-side checks during RFQ or pre-tooling review:

POM vs Nylon Supplier Checks for Moisture, Wear and Sliding Fit
Risk Area Supplier-Side Check
Moisture-sensitive fit Conditioning plan, post-conditioning measurement, CMM report
Sliding wear Contact surface review, wear condition, mating material, surface finish
Gear function Gear pitch check, roundness check, gear gauge plan
Bushing fit ID tolerance, shaft-fit test, functional assembly test
Tight tolerance Datum strategy, fixture validation, CMM method
Material uncertainty Resin datasheet, application notes, selected grade confirmation

Tight-fit approval should still rely on the exact grade, tool design, molding condition, gear gauge, bushing ID check, shaft-fit test, CMM method and T0/T1 samples.

POM and nylon parts inspected for tolerance stability and creep risk

Tolerance Stability, Creep and Service Environment

Tolerance stability in POM vs Nylon parts should be reviewed when the part has tight fit, continuous load, humidity exposure, chemical contact or CTQ dimensions. For gears, bushings and sliding parts, the material choice should be checked against gear pitch drift, bushing ID change, shaft-fit risk, creep under load, post-conditioning inspection and service environment before tooling.

POM vs Nylon Tolerance Risk in Precision Functional Parts

For precision functional plastic parts, tolerance risk is often more important than nominal strength. A gear that changes pitch, a bushing that changes ID, or a sliding part that binds after humidity exposure can fail even when the material appears strong enough on the datasheet, so CMM report, fixture validation or functional assembly testing may be required. POM usually has an advantage where low moisture absorption and stable dimensions are important, but the exact grade, wall thickness, gate location, shrinkage and inspection method still need review. Nylon may require conditioning plan, post-conditioning inspection, CMM report and assembly validation. Use the Plastic Shrinkage Rate Table by Resin for early shrinkage screening. Use the Tolerance Feasibility Guide when the drawing includes tight fit, datum features, roundness, flatness, hole position or CTQ dimensions.

Creep and Long-Term Fit Under Load

Creep should be reviewed for both POM and nylon. POM can provide stable fit in many low-friction parts, but long-term load, service temperature and wall thickness can still affect functional fit. Nylon can offer toughness and load capacity, but moisture and conditioning can influence stiffness, creep response and long-term assembly fit. For gears, bushings and sliding parts, the supplier should check:

  • Long-term load direction and contact pressure;
  • Service temperature under expected load condition;
  • Shaft fit, mating surface pressure and binding risk;
  • Wall thickness around gear teeth, bushing bore or sliding features;
  • Creep-sensitive contact areas and functional test plan;
  • Post-conditioning measurement, CMM report or fixture validation;
  • T0/T1 functional test and production approval criteria.

Chemical Exposure Should Be Screened, Not Assumed

Chemical exposure can affect both POM and nylon, but this section should not become a full chemical resistance chart. If the molded part contacts oil, grease, cleaner, fuel, solvent, disinfectant or unknown service chemicals, confirm the selected resin grade before tooling. Treat chemical compatibility as a project-specific approval item, not a generic material assumption.

POM vs Nylon for Gears, Bushings and Wear Parts

Gear Pitch, Roundness and Noise Risk

For molded gears, POM is often the better starting point because low friction and low moisture absorption can support stable gear pitch, roundness and sliding contact. Nylon may still be useful when impact resistance, toughness or heat resistance matters more than precision pitch stability. Gear approval should include gear pitch check, roundness inspection, gear gauge review, CMM method or T0/T1 functional testing when noise, tooth fit or assembly function matters.

Molded Gear Selection Parameters
Gear Requirement Better Candidate Why It Fits Supplier-Side Check
Low friction gear contact POM / Acetal Lower friction in many sliding applications Gear tooth surface finish, gear gauge, contact pattern review
Stable gear pitch POM / Acetal Lower moisture absorption Gear pitch check, roundness inspection, CMM method
Impact-loaded gear Nylon Better toughness in many designs T0/T1 functional test
Heat-exposed gear Nylon / PA66 Higher heat resistance than POM in some applications Service temperature review
High stiffness gear GF nylon, with review Reinforced stiffness Moldflow fiber orientation, warpage, tool steel, mold wear and CMM or fixture review

Bushing ID, Shaft Fit and Sliding Wear

For bushings, POM is often preferred because ID stability, low friction and low moisture absorption are important. Nylon can still be suitable when toughness, impact resistance or load capacity matters more than tight shaft fit. Moisture-driven dimensional change can shift bushing ID, shaft clearance, contact pressure and sliding behavior after molding or conditioning.

Molded Bushing Specification Matrix
Bushing Requirement Better Candidate Why It Fits Supplier-Side Check
Stable shaft fit POM / Acetal Low moisture absorption ID tolerance, shaft-fit test, post-conditioning measurement
Low-friction sliding POM / Acetal Lower friction in many contact conditions Surface finish, wear review
Impact-sensitive bushing Nylon Better toughness Load direction review, creep check, functional fit test
Moisture-exposed assembly POM / Acetal Lower dimensional drift Post-molding measurement
High load with stiffness need Nylon or reinforced nylon Grade-dependent load performance Creep review, fixture validation, CMM datum method

Wear Part Geometry, Wall Thickness and Gate Location

Material choice alone cannot solve wear and fit problems. POM vs Nylon selection should be checked together with part geometry, mold design, wall thickness, gate location, contact surface, weld line position, shrinkage direction and functional surfaces before tooling.

Use a high-tier DFM & Engineering Review when part geometry, gate concept, wall thickness or tooling layout may affect final gear fit, bushing ID, sliding contact or functional tolerance.

Supplier Evidence to Request Before Tooling POM or Nylon Parts

Before tooling approval or steel cut, request supplier evidence that matches the risk of the drawing, including material approval, wear condition, gear or bushing fit, tolerance inspection, moisture control and FAI requirement. These records help confirm whether the selected POM, acetal or nylon grade can meet the drawing tolerance, functional fit and inspection requirement before production approval.

DFM, Tolerance and Inspection Evidence for POM vs Nylon Material Approval

POM vs Nylon Supplier Evidence Checklist Before Tooling
Project Risk Evidence to Request
POM vs Nylon material approval Selected grade, resin datasheet, material certificate, application notes
Low-friction sliding fit Wear condition, contact surface review, mating material, shaft-fit test, surface finish requirement
Gear or round part accuracy Gear gauge plan, gear pitch check, roundness inspection, CMM datum method, CMM report
Tight tolerance fit Datum strategy, CMM plan, fixture validation, post-conditioning measurement, assembly-fit test
Nylon moisture-sensitive fit Drying record, conditioning plan, post-conditioning measurement
GF nylon warpage Moldflow fiber orientation review, gate concept, flatness fixture, CMM datum method, tool steel and mold wear review
Surface requirement Surface sample, texture requirement, gate vestige limit, weld line review, visual acceptance criteria
Critical dimensions CTQ list, FAI requirement, CMM report, inspection method, inspection report format

Generic material properties are not enough for POM vs Nylon approval. Use DFM & Engineering Review for Injection Molding and CNC Parts to review wall thickness, gate location, shrinkage, wear surface, gear or bushing fit, tolerance feasibility, CMM method and tooling risk before mold layout approval.

Use Quality Documents, PPAP & FAI to define how CTQ dimensions, CMM datum setup, fixture inspection, FAI requirement and inspection reports will be recorded before production approval.

When Not to Use POM or Nylon

Before tooling, define when POM, nylon or GF nylon should be rejected, challenged or redesigned based on impact load, heat exposure, creep, moisture, chemical contact, surface requirement and tool wear risk. Use the table below during RFQ or pre-tooling review to confirm service temperature, load condition, moisture exposure, CTQ tolerance, surface requirement, chemical exposure and inspection method before approving the material choice. For structural evaluation regarding wall uniformities or gate gates, launch a detailed DFM & Engineering Review, and doublecheck moisture shift parameters against the formal Tolerance Feasibility Guide prior to tool tracking.

Material Rejection Table Before Injection Mold Tooling

POM vs Nylon Rejection and Challenge Criteria Before Tooling
Material Challenge or Avoid When Engineering Reason Supplier-Side Check
POM / Acetal High impact or flexible snap-fit behavior is required Strain capacity may not match nylon Challenge snap-fit strain, clip-root radius, impact load and T0/T1 assembly validation
POM / Acetal High heat exposure is required Nylon / PA66 may perform better under heat Challenge service temperature, heat aging condition, load and selected grade
POM / Acetal Long-term high load may cause creep concern Functional fit can drift under load Challenge creep, long-term load, service temperature, wall thickness and fit drift
POM / Acetal Chemical exposure is uncertain Grade compatibility matters Challenge selected grade against oil, grease, cleaner, fuel, solvent or unknown chemicals
POM / Acetal Very thick molded sections are required Sink, void or shrinkage risk may increase Challenge wall thickness, sink, void, gate location, packing and section transition
Nylon Tight fit is required under moisture exposure Moisture absorption can shift dimensions Challenge conditioning plan, post-conditioning CMM report, shaft-fit test and CTQ tolerance review
Nylon Precision gear pitch must remain stable Moisture and shrinkage can affect pitch Challenge gear gauge, gear pitch check, post-conditioning measurement and T0/T1 functional test
GF nylon Smooth cosmetic surface is critical Fiber exposure and rough texture risk Challenge surface sample, fiber exposure, texture requirement, weld line and visual acceptance criteria
GF nylon High tool life with minimal wear is required Glass fiber can abrade tool steel Challenge tool steel, glass fiber content, wear area, mold maintenance and surface finish risk

Summary: How to Choose POM or Nylon Before RFQ

Final POM vs Nylon Material Selection Rule

Choose POM or acetal when the molded part needs low friction, wear resistance, low moisture absorption, stable dimensions, precision fit or low-friction sliding behavior for gears, bushings, rollers or sliding components. Choose nylon when the part needs toughness, impact resistance, heat resistance, snap-fit strain capacity, flexible functional features or structural load capacity.

For tight-fit or load-bearing mechanical parts, final approval should include resin datasheet review, DFM review for wall thickness, gate location, shrinkage, wear surface, gear or bushing fit and tooling risk, shrinkage review, moisture exposure review, conditioning plan when nylon is selected, creep review, gear pitch check, bushing ID check, shaft-fit test, CTQ dimension review, T0/T1 samples, CMM report, fixture validation and inspection data before tooling.

FAQ: POM vs Nylon for Injection Molded Mechanical Parts

Is POM the same as acetal?

Yes. POM, or polyoxymethylene, is commonly referred to as acetal in injection molding. POM and acetal belong to the same material family used for gears, bushings, rollers, sliding parts and precision functional components. The exact resin grade should still be confirmed before tooling.

Is Delrin the same as POM?

Delrin is a well-known acetal homopolymer brand name, while POM is the broader material family. In engineering discussions, Delrin-type material is often compared with nylon for low-friction gears, bushings and sliding parts. Final selection should be based on the exact grade, wear condition, moisture exposure, tolerance requirement and assembly fit.

Is POM better than nylon for gears?

POM is often better than nylon for low-friction gears because it has low moisture absorption and good dimensional stability. Nylon may be better when impact resistance, toughness or heat resistance matters more. For gears, supplier review should confirm gear pitch, roundness, surface finish, load, CMM method and T0/T1 functional testing before tooling. Use the Plastic Shrinkage Rate Table by Resin only as an early shrinkage reference.

Is POM better than nylon for bushings?

POM is often preferred for bushings because it supports low friction, stable ID tolerance and lower moisture-driven dimensional change. Nylon may still work when toughness or impact resistance matters more than tight shaft fit. Bushing approval should include ID tolerance, shaft clearance, shaft-fit test, post-conditioning measurement, surface finish and wear review.

Does POM absorb less moisture than nylon?

Yes. POM usually absorbs less moisture than nylon, which helps maintain dimensional stability in gears, bushings and precision-fit assemblies. Nylon can absorb moisture after molding and during service, so tight-fit nylon parts may need conditioning review, post-conditioning measurement, CMM report or fixture validation.

Is nylon stronger than POM?

Nylon is often better for toughness, impact resistance, snap-fit strain and some load-bearing applications. POM is often better for low friction, wear behavior and dimensional stability under humidity. The better material depends on grade, wall thickness, load, service temperature, tolerance and assembly fit.

Which material is better for tight tolerance parts, POM or nylon?

POM is often the better starting point for tight tolerance gears, bushings or sliding parts when moisture exposure affects fit. Nylon can still be used, but it needs conditioning review, post-conditioning measurement, CMM inspection and fixture validation when CTQ dimensions are sensitive to moisture or shrinkage.

When should I choose nylon instead of POM?

Choose nylon instead of POM when the part needs toughness, impact resistance, snap-fit flexibility, heat resistance or structural load capacity. Nylon is often used for clips, brackets, flexible features and load-bearing housings where moisture-driven dimensional drift can be controlled with conditioning review, clip-root radius check and T0/T1 assembly validation.

When should I choose glass-filled nylon instead of POM?

Choose glass-filled nylon when stiffness, load resistance or creep reduction is more important than low friction or cosmetic smoothness. However, GF nylon can increase fiber orientation risk, directional warpage, mold wear and surface texture. Supplier review should include Moldflow fiber orientation, gate concept, tool steel, mold wear area, CMM datum plan, flatness fixture and surface sample approval.

What should be checked before tooling POM or nylon parts?

Before tooling POM or nylon parts, review selected resin grade, wall thickness, gate location, shrinkage, moisture exposure, wear condition, creep, tolerance, gear or bushing fit, surface finish, CMM method and fixture validation. For critical parts, request T0/T1 samples, FAI requirement, CMM report, fixture validation and DFM & Engineering Review for Injection Molding and CNC Parts before production approval.

POM vs nylon CAD review for gears bushings and fit risk

Upload CAD for POM vs Nylon Material Feasibility Review

Before tooling approval or mold steel cut, verify whether POM, acetal or nylon can meet the part’s friction, wear, load, heat exposure, moisture condition, gear pitch, bushing ID, shaft fit, tolerance, surface finish and assembly-fit requirements. Send your 2D drawing, 3D CAD, target material, service temperature, load condition, CTQ dimensions, tolerance requirement, surface requirement, assembly interface, current material concern and expected production volume.

Engineering Review Output: POM vs nylon selection comments, gear pitch or bushing ID risk, shaft-fit risk, wear and friction risk, moisture and dimensional stability risk, shrinkage review, wall thickness review, gate concept review, tolerance feasibility comments, CMM or fixture inspection method, FAI / inspection report requirement and T0/T1 validation requirement when needed.

Need a material decision before RFQ? Request a POM vs Nylon Material Screening if the drawing has gear pitch risk, bushing ID tolerance, shaft-fit concern, tight fit, moisture exposure, heat load, GF nylon warpage risk, mold wear concern or surface finish requirements before tooling.

Upload CAD for POM vs Nylon Review Check Gear, Bushing, Wear and Fit Risk