Nylon vs. Acetal, UHMW, PEEK & Phenolic

Nylon competes with four main engineering thermoplastics and thermoset composites depending on application: Delrin for precision machined parts, UHMW for abrasion-critical wear surfaces, PEEK for high-temperature service, and cotton phenolic for oiled bearing environments. Each comparison comes down to a different set of trade-offs. This page gives you the decision framework for each pairing.

TL;DR

• Nylon vs. Delrin: both are common machined engineering plastics; Acetal wins on dimensional stability and moisture immunity; Nylon wins on toughness and compressive load
• Nylon vs. UHMW: UHMW wins on abrasion resistance and low friction; Nylon wins on stiffness and compressive strength
• Nylon vs. PEEK: PEEK handles 480°F vs. Nylon's 200°F; PEEK is 10–15× the cost — choose Nylon whenever temperature allows
• Nylon vs. Cotton Phenolic: Phenolic excels in flooded-oil bearing duty; Nylon handles dry-running and impact better

Nylon vs. Delrin (POM)

This is the most frequently asked comparison. Both materials are common in machined bushings, gears, wear pads, and structural parts. They have similar mechanical properties and similar cost — the decision hinges on moisture sensitivity and load profile.

Choose Nylon when: impact or shock loads are present (absorbed moisture raises toughness); high compressive loads on a bush OD; bore tolerances can accommodate moisture growth; Nylatron GS is more economical than PTFE-filled acetal for dry-running bearings.

Choose Delrin when: bore/shaft clearances must hold to ±0.001"–0.002" across humidity variation; lower baseline friction matters; acid/solvent chemical resistance is needed; centerline porosity cannot be tolerated (POM-C copolymer).

See the full analysis at the Acetal vs. Nylon comparison page.

Nylon vs. UHMW Polyethylene

UHMW (ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene) targets the abrasion-resistance end of the wear parts market. Its coefficient of friction is the lowest of any unfilled thermoplastic, and its abrasion resistance is roughly 6× that of unfilled nylon. The trade-off: UHMW cold-flows under sustained compressive load and has very low stiffness.

Choose Nylon over UHMW when:

• The part carries sustained compressive loads above 1,500 psi — UHMW cold-flows and extrudes under sustained high compression; nylon holds its shape better
• Dimensional precision is needed — nylon holds tighter machined tolerances and resists deformation under clamping forces
• A bearing must run at higher PV than UHMW can support — nylon's modulus and hardness allow higher PV limits

Choose UHMW over Nylon when:

• Abrasion from granular material, sand, rock, or high-grit product is the failure mode — UHMW will outlast nylon dramatically in abrasive sliding wear
• Noise reduction is critical — UHMW is even quieter than nylon in sliding contact
• Long-term outdoor UV exposure is a factor — black UHMW resists UV better than black nylon

For UHMW material details, see the UHMW polyethylene guide.

Nylon vs. PEEK

PEEK (polyether ether ketone) is a high-performance semicrystalline polymer that operates where nylon cannot: above 200°F. The performance gap between PEEK and nylon is real and substantial — but so is the price differential.

The nylon/PEEK decision: If continuous service temperature is below 180°F and chemical exposure is limited to hydrocarbons and mild environments, nylon delivers 80–90% of PEEK's functional performance at 1/10th the cost. Specify PEEK only when the temperature, chemical, or radiation environment genuinely requires it: continuous duty above 200°F, steam sterilization, semiconductor/vacuum near-zero outgassing, or hard radiation exposure. See the PEEK material guide for full data.

Nylon vs. Cotton Phenolic

Cotton phenolic (NEMA Grade CE) is a thermoset composite: cotton fabric woven and impregnated with phenol-formaldehyde resin, then laminated under heat and pressure. It predates engineering thermoplastics in bearing applications but remains the preferred choice for certain oiled-bearing environments.

Choose cotton phenolic over nylon when:

• The bearing operates in a flooded-oil environment — oil-impregnated phenolic outperforms any nylon grade in sustained oil-immersed sliding duty
• Very high compressive load is present — phenolic cross-grain compressive strength (30,000+ psi) exceeds nylon by 2×
• Temperature exceeds 200°F in a non-food environment
• The application has a long history of phenolic bearing service and the replacement is like-for-like

Choose nylon over phenolic when:

• Dry running is required — phenolic without oil lubrication performs poorly vs. Nylatron GS
• Impact or shock loading is present — phenolic delamminates under severe impact; nylon absorbs it
• Food contact is required — cotton phenolic binder is not FDA-approved
• Easy machining without specialized coolants is preferred — phenolic dust is an irritant; nylon is not

For full cotton phenolic material data, see the cotton phenolic guide.

Quick-Reference Decision Table

Related Guides

More related guides

Cross-cluster suggestions to help shoppers and engineers explore adjacent topics:

Applications

• Bushings Bearings
• Wear Strips Guide Rails
• Gears

Industries

• Food Beverage
• Automotive

Compare to other materials

• Acetal Vs. Nylon
• Nylon Vs. Uhmw
• Nylon Vs. Cotton Phenolic

Frequently asked questions — Nylon FAQ