Yes the arm runs in the casting making it even more important to have the top nylon bearing in good shape.
During the process of removing the lever arm from the actuating arm the top nylon bearing suffered what can be best termed as collateral damage, so a replacement will need to be found. Having missed out on a NOS one on US Ebay, and drawing a blank from other source I decided that the simplest way of squaring the circle would be to get a replacement made - after all, it's not exactly a complex shape to get machined up.
I took the various bits (excluding the bell housing) round to the local engineering firm and asked them how easy (or difficult) it would be to replicate the original. They reckoned that it would be a trivial amount of work, but with one caveat. The OE bush has a small raised notch on the top surface which mates with an indent in the bell housing casing to positively locate the bush and stop it rotating. Replicating this notch would turn a simple, single stage process into a more complex, multi-stage process. The OE bush was doubtless injection moulded with a production run probably going into the hundreds of thousands. I'm thinking of single or low double figures for my 'production run'.
There was also the question of the most suitable material to use as a bush/bearing material. Plastics technology has advanced hugely in the (nearly 50) years since that nylon part was designed. There is now a bewildering choice of plastics available, but I narrowed the choice down to two types of material available form a local plastics firm; Acetal and UHMWPE (Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly Ethylene). Acetal is the better known of the two, but certain characteristics of UHMWPE really appealed to me. Here is a brief run down of the pluses and minuses of the two materials:
AcetalProbably the easiest of all engineering plastics to machine
Very low friction characteristics (i.e. 'slippery')
Very suitable for to high speed automated machining processes such as CNC lathes
Short term (<2 hours) upper temp limit of 140 deg C. Long term limit 105 deg C. Lower temp limit -40 deg C.
High stiffness, tensile strength and surface hardness
UHMWPEExtremely low moisture absorption
Extremely low coefficient of friction (similar to Teflon/PTFE)
Self-lubricating and is highly resistant to abrasion.
Very resistant to water, moisture, most chemicals
Only becomes brittle at temperatures below −150°C (!)
Not advisable to use UHMWPE at temperatures exceeding 80°C to 100°C for extended periods of time.
Maybe not suitable for high load applications
Very high resistance to wear
So, based on the above I'd welcome people's opinions on two points:
1) Would the omission of the locating notch be a deal breaker if you were considering purchase of a part machined from either of these materials? I would be looking to accurately specify the internal and external diameters such that the part would be a light press fit in the bell housing, and run tighter clearance internally than the OE part for better location.
2) Which would be your preferred material? For me UHMWPE wins on most grounds except that of temperature tolerance. How hot does a bell housing get? Bear in mind that 'extended periods of time' in engineering terms is 5000 to 20000 hours.
Lastly, here's a link to an article about UHMWPE:
https://www.directplastics.co.uk/about-plastics/uhmwpe-a-fantastic-plastic-you-can-t-pronounce