When manufacturers test their designs they will typically test to failure. The test they use is normally a continuous load test. When we use our transmissions in the ways that we do when we drive our cars we do not subject the transmission to a nice smooth continuous load like grandma on her way to church.
I am not privy to the Tremec test results but I would be surprised if the transmissions would not support somewhere between 2x and 3x their rated torque capacities under continuous load. I also suspect the ultimate failure point to be closer to 2x than 3x.
When ever you transmit power through two gears the heat treatment, gear material, tooth design, gear face (tooth) width and center to center distance between the two gears determines their strength and ultimate torque transmission capability.
Jimi G from Standard is telling the story straight! The folks at Tremec cut corners for manufacturing simplicity and cost when they went to the one piece countershaft. The gear hob (the tool that cuts the teeth) needs a chip channel to push out the chips from the freshly hobbed gear. With out the chip channel the cutter would bottom and jam or break in the freshly cut chips.
Remember how to determine load capacity for the gear set from my paragraph 3 above. If you cut the face contact by 50% you have 50% of the torque capacity of the same gear set with full face contact. Why do you think Tremec lines up all the other gear sets correctly. Third is the bastard child, sacrificed for manufacturing cost reductions.
Look at the gear set alignments in a Jerico five speed at this url
http://www.jericoperformance.com/5.html there are no misalignments. Check the Liberty site at
http://www.libertysgears.com/picture.htm again no misalignments. These are purpose built performance transmissions. The Tremec units we have purchased should employ comparable design quality. They don't have to be as strong, they certainly don't cost as much. But the design should not cut corners.
Because we do not use these transmissions like grandma on her way to church the continuous load failure model can be misleading. The shock loads on a gear change under power are much more damaging to the transmission than a continuous load from the same engine car combination. This is further aggravated if your tires are hooked up with a good clutch and a clean but fast shift into third gear. That clean fast shift puts spectacular momentary loads on the gear. Anything less than full tooth contact is a significant reduction in gear life.
Think about it. If Tremec did not need the face width why did they spend the money in steel, tooling, manufacturing time and engineering time to put it there. Across thoudands of units this is not inconsequential! The real answer is the gear tooth face width was not an accident. It was an intentional design decision necessary to support planned torque loads. When manufacturing got the job of making the unit they discovered the design engineer and the manufacturing engineer didn't communicate as well as they should have. The short way home was to offset the countershaft gear and get on with manufacturing.
You and I are the victims. First and second without drag tires are hard to hook up. Third gear is a different story. Make a fast clean shift into third under power without breaking the tires loose. The outcome could be quite devastating for third gear. Like Bogart said in Casablanca, 'maybe not today or maybe not tomorrow, but someday'. I think someday is closer than we may think.
Unlike Keisler's representation of a missed shift causing the damage, quite to the contrary a clean shift under power with the tires hooked up and enough torque is what will kill third gear.
From what Tremec told me the TKO500 and TKO600 both suffer the misalignment.
Ed