[Dinan_Engineering]

Originally Posted by mc3456

Here's where I don't buy the "we charge more because we are better" argument...if you are providing such a more highly-engineered product, why are your much more expensive performance gains so vastly similar to what your competitors obtain for far less money? Surely they are not cutting corners to only get similar performance gains. Also, some of your claims are for much higher horsepower, so wouldn't you be stressing systems more for those gains? Basically, you can't have it both ways.

You are focusing on a single variable, gains, and concluding an overall comparison. That is flawed logic. The end result may be similar but the process for getting there can be vastly different. A Kia Optima and a BMW 328i have about the same horsepower rating so by your logic they should be the same price. Quality of materials, engineering, etc in reality make it a more expensive product. In the case of this specific tuning the Dinan method is to make the DINANTRONICS module transparent to the factory engine management meaning that all related variables are changed in unison so nothing is out of whack and the factory ECU isn't stumbling on itself trying to correct for perceived errors. This results in retained engine check system and superior drivability. We could get the same end power result by simply turning up the boost and letting the factory DME and knock sensor constantly try to auto correct all the other values (as some tuners do) but its not as refined a solution. Then there is also the warranty and emissions element that increases cost (again the only tuner to offer a factory matching warranty and be emissions legal in all 50 states). As much as you wish to discredit those 2 pieces they are still at play when considering cost.

I'm also confused by your last statement as we almost always are lower then the competition as far as output because we don't want to over-exert the engine and sacrifice engine life so I am not sure where you are getting that data from because its simply not accurate.

Also, if your product has such amazing safeguards of not stressing the engine, why are you so concerned about the magazines fully testing your product? If you have gone to such great lengths to not take great risks for gains, then the cars should not be compromised. Call me crazy, but I tend to like objective data when making decisions involving money. Might those be the same sorts of analyses that your beancounters are also doing?

I never said we were concerned about the magazine fully testing our product. We encourage it. What I made mention of was that performance derived from these publications is flawed just because of how/what they do to achieve their numbers. No amount of engineering can safeguard against an aggressive tester that treats a manual transmission like it has no limits and they simply don't care. We have replaced numerous gearboxes due to publications attempting to "maximize numbers".

Here's the thing, you can discount all the potential customers who are not yet convinced of the Dinan value proposition as not being true customers, but for many they are true potential customers in so far as they want to be certain that the promised Dinan Premium Value Proposition is actually real and not just a bunch of BS to justify screwing unwitting buyers. Having demo cars available is certainly a smart move, but as we all know, anecdotal seat of the pants impressions are not as accurate as instrumented tests. If they were, you'd be selling a S-load more "pretty" CAI intakes, right?

Not discounting them as potential customers at all. We would love them to become customers but the fact of the matter is if the customer is price centric and just wants the cheapest solution chances are the Dinan product will never make it into the picture or be considered. With demo/loaner cars there's at least the off chance that if they get into the vehicle they may realize the value and change their attitude. But without the experience no chance is ever given by the price centric customer. Those that will at least entertain Dinan as an option will do the research and typically reach out to the dealer for questions, test drives, etc and they can experience everything first hand. If its not enough power for them they simply move on.

Lastly, regarding the design of your tailpipes, they may be 30 years old, but at the same time, they are 30 years old. Time to evolve a bit when you are charging premium prices, just as BMW's engineering in the cars has. Worst case scenario, you can offer several tip options for different tastes to broaden the market for your product. To not do it just plain stupid/lazy. Again, it's about designing what the customer wants, not what is cheapest and easist for Dinan to produce. Candidly, the sawed off single wall pipe looks cheap as hell, and certainly not worthy of gracing a $50-120k car. Though I thought the brief sound bite was decent, the hacky looking pipes are just something I personally can't get past. Change those to something of higher quality, and I will gladly sell my MPE and install Dinan. Hate to state the obvious here, but all your competitors are outselling your exhaust systems based on the tip design just as much if not more than the sound alone.

I'll address the exhaust tip comments below in response to your follow-up post.

Pulling for your M4 to show some actual performance gains in that upcoming C&D article (couldn't care less about blogs), but I am a bit skeptical based on prior "more anecdotal" articles I've seen before that show hardly any marked peformance gains.

Again, if you actually accomplished/evidenced something in instrumented tests to justify the premium priced Dinan value proposition -vs- a stock M4 in a head to head test, then I'll gladly dump my Turner bits and pay your out of market pricing.

I'm sure it did just fine in their head to head test. As to whether or not it is up to snuff for the individuals needs and the value proposition they have in their head that is an entirely different question. One that each and every potential customer would have to weigh themselves.

You never did address my original question though in regards to these independent tests from major publications.... Why is Dinan the only tuner that is held to this standard? Seems a bit biased to me and is a clear indicator that Dinan, for whatever the reason, is held to a totally different standard then everyone else. How did you derive that the Turner product was the one you wanted when no independent testing from major (or any for that matter) publications exists on it?

Originally Posted by mc3456

You're on the Bimmerpost Forums, clearly you can make the correlation between the extraordinary amount exhaust tip comments and people buying your competitors products, no? If you're lowering prices and people still aren't buying your product but buying other company's products, doesn't that tell you something about what people actually think about your product design. Do yourselves a favor and start offering other tip designs. The cost of engineering those is not THAT high, and having more choice certainly can't hurt sales.

You keep insisting our tips are the main problem we have in exhaust sales. The complaints we hear and reasoning we get back for our exhausts not selling are typically anything but the tips. Out of every 20 complaints, maybe 1 is tip related. Maybe. Sure, more options could help but nowhere near the fix all of our problems type of solution that you seem to imply. The most common complaint on our exhaust is its too quiet. We make a drone free, civilized exhaust and the loud droning boomy exhaust is not what we strive to make and in fact is the exact opposite.

Thats the beauty of competition... if you don't like what one vendor provides you can always go to another that may be more in line with your needs. Its incredibly hard to satisfy everyone and in most cases, impossible. There will always be an outlier.