I'm inclined to agree that generally speaking I'd be reluctant to use
NOS rubber parts. However, I'll offer this observation. I compared the
"new" Moss boot to the original. While the original was chafed and
chewed up in a number of places from 37 years of service, it had no
cracks or rot. BTW, the original boot was made by Lockheed. Given the
choice in this case, I think I would have been better off with NOS
boots.
Roland
>
> > this is why use N.O.S. parts are so valuable to us...
>
> ... except for the fact that NOS rubber is about just as stupid to install
> as new inferior rubber products from Moss. NOS parts are treated like any
> other parts by the supplier, they sit in open boxes, in a warehouse...
> humidity is usually not maintained, and certainly the NOS rubber products
> are not coated with anything. Too costly...
>
> Even the cosmoline (sp?) applied to metal parts (gears, crankshafts, etc) in
> the 60s/70s goes bad, allowing moisture to get under the skin and begin to
> surface rust the NOS part. The cosmoline wrapping paper is usually not much
> better at all either.
>
> Even large chrome items are difficult to maintain their NOS status. Because
> sometimes the factory would apply a type of very tape with a residue to the
> chrome items (mostly bumpers). Well of course the residue has now dried
> over 20+ years, and as you pull the tape off the rest of the dried material
> won't come off! It actually does attack the surface some what, but can be
> polished out.
>
> Thank goodness I do not work for a supplier with vast amounts of
> uninventoried NOS parts any longer :-)
>
> --
> Kai M. Radicke -- kmr@pil.net
> 1966 MGB -- 1974 Triumph TR-6
> http://www.pil.net/~felix (pix soon)
>
>
|