Verdict on current TKO 600 Transmission? - Page 5

RICK LAKE · #81 (**permalink**) 12-23-2006, 11:40 AM

rj8806 Richard you sell alot of trans kits from other forumns I have read. If you put pressure on termec, you could fine out if there are any problems with the trans. Engineers build stuff on computers, Machinists build the parts and make them work, then some accountant comes along and says we need to cut costs per unit. Cheat here and there and make it boarder line qualitity and have China make them. Poor steel and machine work, as long as it is in specs. This has become the USA way. I see it every day. I you stop buying there trans and build your own like G-Force and could stay within $700.00 of the termec and said what ever you wanted people would buy the trans. If a problem happened it could be fixed in house. Viper owners did this when it first came out and Dodge listened and made changes so did GM with the Vette. You have taken alot from the CC memebers on this thread including myself, you only sell the parts, not make them, is there a tech line for termec or forumn to there company? There is where the pi$$ing match needs to go. The other thing is high 9 and low 10 second cars pulling the front tires off the ground racing on street tires with VHT added I have seen at E-town. Rick Lake

Jamo · #82 (**permalink**) 12-23-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaider

The jokes are cute guys but we know that 40 year old design Ford Toploaders and 40 year old design Chrysler A-833 transmissions don't have the frequency, type of failures or power train component alignment problems we are seeing here. They also weren't sold with the aggressive performance message the Tremec units were sold with.

The buyer beware admonition is certainly not suspended for transmission purchases but at the same time you as a consumer end up relying primarily on the representations of the manufacturer and the reseller untill enough units are in service to assess real world performance.

This is the real world performance assessment we are going through and I for one think it is important so that future potential buyers can make an informed decision prior to purchase.

Lets the facts say what they will say. Isn't that one of the benefits of the website?

Ed

p.s. Jamo, my apologies for my last post I was not focused in the post and tended to repeat myself. Sorry I ddn't have time to do a better job but wanted to get the point made.

Hey...no problem! You repeated yourself more in this post than the other one anyway.

Jamo · #83 (**permalink**) 12-23-2006, 12:13 PM

Rick Lake Rick....pretty please?

Excaliber · #84 (**permalink**) 12-23-2006, 06:41 PM

For the engineering for strength guys out there:
1. Tremec changed the counter shaft design (two piece) to a solid machined one piece design to INCREASE the strength of the transmission. Reference was made to the older multi piece counter shaft being a 'weak point' in the original design.
2. With the NEW design 3rd gear does not perfectly line up. Maybe thats a problem, maybe not, the answer seems to 'depend' on it's expected use.

Would you prefer a MULTI piece counter shaft over a misaligned 3rd gear counter shaft? Which one do you think is stronger?

I would assume that SOMEBODY must have broken the old multi piece counter shaft but theres been no mention of that, or did I miss it? Perhaps the new design was a proactive move on Tremecs part to simply increase over all strength?

Short of a completely new trans case and gear set deigns there seems to be no other option to have BOTH a one piece counter shaft AND a perfectly aligned 3rd gear. There are no realistic options to address this particular 'engineering' design, it is what it is. You either live with it or not. I seriously doubt that 'soft gears', as has been suggested by some, is the problem, therefore, it's not a realistic part of the solution. Buy one or don't, THAT is the option now and in the future as I see it!

eschaider · #85 (**permalink**) 12-23-2006, 10:05 PM

Actually there is another option.

It is possible to build a one piece countershaft with gears that can be slid into position and located with either fastners like spirolocks or simply spacers that position the gears opposite their corresponding driven gear on the mainshaft. A nice colllateral benefit if a gear failure were encountered would be the ability to replace only the failed gear(s) not the entire countershaft.

Another benefit would be the ability to select premium steels such as 4340, 9310 or 300M should you want/choose to. Flexibility would be dramatic, tuning of individual ratios for individual gears would be possible (with individual mainshaft gear alternatives) and the overall strength of the box could be substantially improved.

Ed

Excaliber · #86 (**permalink**) 12-23-2006, 11:36 PM

Gears that slide into position, sounds like a multi piece counter shaft! Perhaps a better design, but still 'multi piece'. Unlike the top loader and the current Tremec, one piece.

eschaider · #87 (**permalink**) 12-24-2006, 01:00 AM

Actually it would be a premium alloy ultra high strength one piece billet countershaft with replaceable individual gears a.k.a. Jerico, G-Force and Liberty. Although Liberty does have two countershafts instead of one.

Ed

Anthony · #88 (**permalink**) 12-24-2006, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaider

Actually there is another option.

It is possible to build a one piece countershaft with gears that can be slid into position and located with either fastners like spirolocks or simply spacers that position the gears opposite their corresponding driven gear on the mainshaft. A nice colllateral benefit if a gear failure were encountered would be the ability to replace only the failed gear(s) not the entire countershaft.

I think the Richmond 5 speed is made this way, each gear slides on its shaft. But, I would think it is more expensive to make a tranny this way, a little more parts, a little more assembly. I would think most people are fine with the "standard" tranny gear ratio's, and don't need custom ratio's. Obvioulsy, if you are going to offer a tranny with multiple ratio's, like jerico, G-Force, richmond, then in the long run I bet it is cheaper to design a tranny with separate gears than build multiple different ratio trannys.

Excaliber · #89 (**permalink**) 12-24-2006, 09:24 AM

If Tremec did modify their existing trans to be like other more expensive trans it would likely drive the cost up considerably. Thus elmininating the 'cost effective' alternative we have now. There is no free lunch...

eschaider · #90 (**permalink**) 12-24-2006, 10:45 AM

Anthony, you're right about Richmond. It was my oversight to have left them out. The ability to change/mofigy individual gear ratios is sort of an extra added attraction optional at no extra cost if this was done to a TKO. The real reason for the individual gears is the ability to service only the component that has failed rather than the entire set of gears on the countershaft.

In that vein suppose a particular user had an application where a change in second gear may be appropriate? More ratio, less ratio, different gear material, different heat treat, the desire to micronite only one gear either because of usage or cost. The individual gear approach provides a significant amount of flexibility to the owner.

As Excalibur has noted the cost if Tremec did this may discourage new sales of the transmission because of hoe they would have to/want to price it. How many of us run original cams, pistons, valve, valve springs, heads, blocks, flywheels, clutches etc. Most of us have chosen to go to higher quality aftermarket alternatives. This is the same idea.

The basic TKO design is very attractive especially with a fifth gear overdrive. What we have found is a product weakness in an otherwise attractive product that the OEM appears not likely to address. Suppose there was a better aftermarket replacement part for the weaker OEM part. It's really that simple.

Ed