DINANTRONICS In-Depth

[Dinan_Engineering]

We have gotten a lot of responses from our previous video regarding a breakdown of DINANTRONICS (you can view it here if you have not seen it yet). In addition to the feedback we also received many more questions so we decided to post another video with a bit more in depth on DINANTRONICS and the Dinan tuning philosophy in general. Feel free to ask any questions if you have any and I will do my best to answer them.

[M6-Coupe]

I asked this question in other thread:

Everybody knows the DCT on current M5/M6 is GETRAG 7DCI700 and the maximum torque is rated to 700 NM (516 lb-ft). Considering Germans are conservative ,10-15% underrated still we are at less than 600 lb-ft torque input and probably 600-650 HP power input...Isn't this much tuning ( ie Dinan stage 1 with 680 HP, 644 lb-ft torque) harmful for a DD car that is supposed to be pushed to the limit SOMETIMES (ie LC or hard acceleration) and run +100k miles in 5-6 years? Doesn't it reduce the life time of engine/transmission/differential?

Thanks in advance

[Dinan_Engineering]

Originally Posted by M6-Coupe

I asked this question in other thread:

Everybody knows the DCT on current M5/M6 is GETRAG 7DCI700 and the maximum torque is rated to 700 NM (516 lb-ft). Considering Germans are conservative ,10-15% underrated still we are at less than 600 lb-ft torque input and probably 600-650 HP power input...Isn't this much tuning ( ie Dinan stage 1 with 680 HP, 644 lb-ft torque) harmful for a DD car that is supposed to be pushed to the limit SOMETIMES (ie LC or hard acceleration) and run +100k miles in 5-6 years? Doesn't it reduce the life time of engine/transmission/differential?

Thanks in advance

Your conservative estimate on underrating is.... conservative. We do not believe that our products sacrifice the long term reliability of the vehicle. It's hard to say for sure since this current generation of vehicles haven't made it out that far but I think our track record in reliability proves this to some extent.

The problem with transmissions and their ratings is they are assigned their ratings for what I can only assume are legal/liability reasons. Almost always the maximum transmission rating is the exact maximum power of the vehicle it is on. That same transmission may also be applied to multiple cars but for each car the transmission is rated at a differing maximum (typically the maximum for the car it is on). Obviously something does not exactly equate there and the rating you see is altered for some reason. Again, I can only assume it is for liability reasons but only BMW or the transmission manufacturer would be able to tell you for sure.

[MCarsFan]

Great video. Thank you.

Listening to Steve Dinan's explanation regarding the piggy back unit was insightful. However, I interpreted the strategy of tricking the original ECU into making more boost, timing, etc and the corresponding errors and limp mode risks associated with an aggressive piggy back tune as an art rather than a science and that this tune was unfortunately a compromise to avoid the decryption challenges.

This makes me more certain than ever that a proper remap is the best route to ensure drivability and ensure mechanical issues are kept to a minimum.

Surely at this point it would make sense to adopt the decryption technology created by BR Engineering and for DINAN to create its own tuning solution for the market? I would personally welcome a real DINAN remap offered to the market as this might address a lot of members warranty concerns.

I waited patiently for a long time for DINAN to produce a real tune that removed the speed limiter and ensured CEL issues were removed. DINAN would be welcome to look at the remap on my car and decide if it's a solution they would like to adopt in the long run.

[exmowner]

Originally Posted by MCarsFan

Great video. Thank you.

Listening to Steve Dinan's explanation regarding the piggy back unit was insightful. However, I interpreted the strategy of tricking the original ECU into making more boost, timing, etc and the corresponding errors and limp mode risks associated with an aggressive piggy back tune as an art rather than a science and that this tune was unfortunately a compromise to avoid the decryption challenges.

This makes me more certain than ever that a proper remap is the best route to ensure drivability and ensure mechanical issues are kept to a minimum.

Surely at this point it would make sense to adopt the decryption technology created by BR Engineering and for DINAN to create its own tuning solution for the market? I would personally welcome a real DINAN remap offered to the market as this might address a lot of members warranty concerns.

I waited patiently for a long time for DINAN to produce a real tune that removed the speed limiter and ensured CEL issues were removed. DINAN would be welcome to look at the remap on my car and decide if it's a solution they would like to adopt in the long run.

+1

[Dinan_Engineering]

Originally Posted by MCarsFan

Great video. Thank you.

Listening to Steve Dinan's explanation regarding the piggy back unit was insightful. However, I interpreted the strategy of tricking the original ECU into making more boost, timing, etc and the corresponding errors and limp mode risks associated with an aggressive piggy back tune as an art rather than a science and that this tune was unfortunately a compromise to avoid the decryption challenges.

This makes me more certain than ever that a proper remap is the best route to ensure drivability and ensure mechanical issues are kept to a minimum.

Surely at this point it would make sense to adopt the decryption technology created by BR Engineering and for DINAN to create its own tuning solution for the market? I would personally welcome a real DINAN remap offered to the market as this might address a lot of members warranty concerns.

I waited patiently for a long time for DINAN to produce a real tune that removed the speed limiter and ensured CEL issues were removed. DINAN would be welcome to look at the remap on my car and decide if it's a solution they would like to adopt in the long run.

I will refer to a series of posts within the M4 forum to save myself a bit of typing. You can go here and read posts 58-60. For those that are a bit too lazy to click the link the jist is below:

Redfox: I wouldn't call it a scam. The flashes out there requires hardware modification, it's take taking your cell phone into the store for an u"upgrade", versus just upgrading directly on your phone. So, in these cases, the ECU gets pulled, opened up, reprogrammed, sealed back up and reinstalled, versus an OBDII port flash, which requires you to plug in a computer. Quite different.

One can always flash the ECU if you access the hardware directly. That's a no brainer...The trick is, how do you devise a product that can be distributed and updated with ease? If you are not local to the shop, do a bench flash, then BMW releases a software upgrade, you would have to do the bench flash again. Sorry, I'm not going to put my car out of commission for weeks every time BMW reflashes the ECU.

The objective is to be able to do a OBDII port flash, not a bench flash. All Dinan's previous flashes were OBDII flashes, while all other shops had bench flashes. This what we are talking about. I don't care about bench flashes. I also don't want to mess with the hardware/ECU.

Boss330, this is not an argument/competition about who is right or who is wrong. It's a simple thread to share information and opinion. I don't knock bench flashes, I just want convenience. One more thing to consider, ECU flashes are better because you can adjust AFR etc that you cannot do with typical piggy backs. If Dinan's claim is true (ie., can trim AFR), then the only advantage I see a bench flash has over Dinan's piggy back, aside from the obvious higher HP bump, is the speed limiter delete. Food for thought.

Dinan reps on here can correct me if I am wrong. Dinan distributes/installs through Dinan's dealer network. They will not release a product that is not plug and play. Bench flash tunes are nothing new. They will always be around. It's possible that only one shop gained access to ECU via hardware and sold the procedure to every other tuner shop out there.

Dinan: +1 to Redfox, both the prior posts were pretty spot on.

All that is available is bench flashing. Nothing wrong with them at all as they do accomplish the end goal but using a bench flash we could never entertain given our business model and distribution channels. We experimented with similar (if not the same) methods during our early development but ultimately abandoned it because it was determined it was not leading us to a point where an OBD2 flash would come of it; which is the only type of software flash we are interested in. Hence the reason for the release of DINANTRONICS. Since we cannot defeat the encryption for an OBD2 flash solution as of yet we developed the wiring and box that addressed a lot more signals and the result is the performance is as good as if we did software. While with a bench flash you do have access to clearing CEL’s and to removing the governor along with the remapping it also entails having to remove the ECU from the vehicle and then physically opening it or drilling into it to access the internals. This is not something Dinan is willing to do, namely because of our warranty and our relationship with BMW / dealerships. BMW would never allow it and our warranty exposure would be greatly increased to the point it would be price restrictive.

[MCarsFan]

Thanks you for your post and I appreciate that this is the position of DINAN especially regarding their relationship with BMW.

The link you provided was very interesting and the conversation between red fox and Boss330 raises more valid points to me though that these points are highly debatable.

Re- quoted from Boss330 and from personal conversations with BR Performance who remapped my car.

Quote:

"No hardware modification is required. The DME needs to be opened, yes. But that is to gain access to the chip so they can read the pwd. After that the case is closed by using the same glue the DME manufacturer uses"

.."BR Performance has stated several times on this forum that after the pwd has been read they have two options on how to do the flash tune:

Bench flash
OBD flash..."

"They need to open the DME for one thing only, and that is the pwd. After that, they can flash and reflash via OBD (according to what they Write on their own thread)"

Surely this means that once the password for the ECUs has been obtained, concerns around remotely reflashing the DMEs has been addressed? My understanding of this is clearly limited and I respect the concerns raised about having to physically remove the ECUs each time BMW undertakes a software upgrade..but surely this is where we will end up..with the password surely the concerns DINAN has regarding being able to remotely maintain the software are addressed..

Requoted from red fox:

"I don't knock bench flashes, I just want convenience. One more thing to consider, ECU flashes are better because you can adjust AFR etc that you cannot do with typical piggy backs. If Dinan's claim is true (ie., can trim AFR), then the only advantage I see a bench flash has over Dinan's piggy back, aside from the obvious higher HP bump, is the speed limiter delete. Food for thought"

Boss330
"What is better?

Having access to every map in the software and being able to program them, raise torque limiters etc

or

Manipulating the DME to believe boost is lower than it actually is etc, but still having software in the DME programmed for std operating parametres


To me, it's obviously better to have a good tuner being able to write new software settings and have software that actually is written for the power and boost the car has. That being said, piggybacks definitely works great for many applications and is a very good alternative to a flash tune, especially since we currently have the drawback of having to remove the DME etc."

Which raises my final point with regards to piggy back systems - surely they are also detectable to BMW?

Boss330
Quote
"
I also believe that the same detection possibilites mentioned for a flash tune is valid also for a piggyback. A piggyback can only alter so many inputs and outputs from the DME, and there is bound to be quite a few mismatching parametres stored in the DME (after all BMW knows about piggyback tuning and have probably done their due dilligence and figured out what the DME needs to log and what to look for in those logs to detect a piggyback having been installed). And if they haven't done this yet, then they can, and that is also true for a flash tune.."

Which leads me to ask whether at the end of the day we are debating which is less harmful to the car and to the relationship with BMW..I personally have every respect for DINAN which is why I offered them to look at the remap on my car. All I ask is, if the ECUs are able to accessed via OBD once the passwords have been obtained - does this not address to a greater extent a lot of concerns raised?

To me it's clearly about which is better and I trust this reply is accepted in the spirit it was intended.

Thank you for considering my offer.

[AstonMartian777]

Nice video you can't knock Dinan they are doing a great job considering they are taking full responsibility. It's just there are power junkies (like me) who want all the power in the world. Otherwise for a good power bump, I think this is ideal.

[MCarsFan]

Originally Posted by AstonMartian777

Nice video you can't knock Dinan they are doing a great job considering they are taking full responsibility. It's just there are power junkies (like me) who want all the power in the world. Otherwise for a good power bump, I think this is ideal.

Absolutely, as long as you are comfortable that the piggyback has addressed all of your concerns. I still believe a proper remap is a safer route to go in the long run...time will tell!

[boots]

I agree ^^^^^

[bronch]

Originally Posted by MCarsFan

...I still believe a proper remap is a safer route to go in the long run...time will tell!

Good point. Safer? We'll see, it'll have to be compared to the piggybacks since they've been out longer and have mileage under them. I'd also like to see it more convenient though (i.e.- OBDII flashable) and some sort of warranty backing... I realize I'm beating a dead horse here, but at least I'm consistent I guess.

[AstonMartian777]

Originally Posted by MCarsFan

Absolutely, as long as you are comfortable that the piggyback has addressed all of your concerns. I still believe a proper remap is a safer route to go in the long run...time will tell!

I'll tell you this much, there are cars with piggy backs that has been running for years (n54) without any issues. There were bad examples of course but it was usually when someone tried to make the car fly with a speed of sound with meth, e85 and nitrous all together . If Dinan covers the warranty I wouldn't worry, especially on a leased car.

[boots]

^^^^ Poor ol lease car. "You just keep on using me til u used me up".
( words by Al Green).

[mastek]

Originally Posted by boots

^^^^ Poor ol lease car. "You just keep on using me til u used me up".
( words by Al Green).

You mean Bill Withers?http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/billwithers/useme.html

[boots]

Yea that's him. Thanks for correcting me. Lol

[wrsbmw]

I'm going to make a point about software licenses on this thread that everyone should consider and I had this conversation with Willy Brombacher concerning Porsche. He was interested enough in what I had said about piggy back tunes at a 6speedonline thread that he called me personally through the guys that modded my 991tts.

When I sold my software I licensed it which if you ever bother to read the license agreement for purchased software, when you check the box, it only gives you a right to use the software as is (including bugs) but not to reverse engineer it or change it. Each software package we sold was built with a special key during the compile phase. That key was used along with the hardware ID of the computer to encrypt a license file that we sent out when the purchase was made. Upon start-up, the software reads the license file and applies the key and the system hardware ID. The license file specified what coverage the license gave and that was the extent of our use of decryption and encryption for software functionality control.

Willy Brombacher told me that MB didn't like the flash tunes and so when it encrypted the DME data, it considered the software to be licensed by the purchaser and sued the makers of flash tunes for software license violations. I wouldn't be surprised to see BMW and Porsche do the same and I would think piggyback is likely to be the way these tunes are going to have to be done going forward. Getting this password is hacking and that is illegal where access to protected computers over the internet is concerned here in the US.

I won't buy a GIAC flash because Porsche doesn't support it. I would strongly advise against any BMW flash tune not supported by BMW.

Just my $.02.

ETA: There is no speed limiter on my 991tts which is one good reason I no longer own the M5 and will likely not come back to BMW for a performance car in the future.

[boots]

Ah but you did have fun driving it William

[wrsbmw]

Originally Posted by boots

Ah but you did have fun driving it William

No doubt about that that, it was a fun car, albeit with more than a few problems and all of my BMWs were that way with the exception of the X5 5.0.