scubatoys:
We have had a large percentage of them have IP creep problems and also more than a few bubble out past the 1st stage diaphragm. And this was on regs less than a year old without a lot of dives on them.
We have not had the same problem with a relatively samller number of regulators with a relatively high number of dives on them.
However I do agree that in theory one potential issue with any seat and orifice design is the potential for things to rotate over time and/or shift enough to create a pair of slightly overlapping seating grooves in the seat. This then allows a small leak in each of the two spots where the grooves overlap. This is one reason you absolutley never reuse a seat after you disassemble a first stage as this creates the potential for this to occur. This potential problem is also I suspect the reason Scubapro incorporated a HP seat guide in the Mk 17 design. It's also the reason for the square shaped seat carriers in USD Conshelfs and Titans, etc as this approach reduces the potential for any seat /seat carrier rotation over time.
scubatoys:
And as far as "one of their low end regulators" that is actually a direct quote from the national sales manager of Tusa who was in my shop last Saturday for a Scuba Diving Magazine Sponsored Tusa sale...
I have heard SP sales reps and other company sales reps and marketing execs say things that amounted to nothing more than the company party line - putting the desired spin on things is a large part of what they do for a living. Any company, whether they sell scuba gear, cars, office supplies or whatever, push products that in some way meet a company marketing strategy and/or benefit the company's bottom line the most.
A good example of this is the SP sales rep who serves the LDS's in this area who feels shops should be regarding the MK 25 SA as the ideal regulator and the top of the line choice for an advanced level diver (who does not want to spend big bucks on titanium). This advice works ok for the strictly tropical dive trip divers in the area, but is badly flawed with regard to divers who will be diving in some of the deep and extremely cold water in the area where the Mk 25 has a bad habit of freezing up. Not being local, he would probably not agree with our LDS owner who feels the Mk 16 and Mk17 are much better suited to the demands of local diving.
Personally, I have never been overly swayed by the "authority" argument (it must be true just because someone important said it) as a valid way of knowing anything without also taking a look at things from a scientific, logical and/or philospohical perspective to confirm the validity of whatever the authority figure is saying. It's a critical thinking process that it not used as often as it should be anymore.
scubatoys:
...and based on the fact the dealer cost on that model is less than their other ones... which then I would consider their higher end. And I have found the other tusa models not only cost more... but perform better.
Lower production cost is one of the advantages of the economy of scale that results from increasing production through licensed designs. Obviously, if the research, development and tooling costs were paid by Scubapro and all Tabata pays is a license fee, which was already built in as an offset on the SP production contract, the total cost of producing an R400 is going to be a lot less than for another regulator totally designed and produced by Tabata. In fact, given the R&D and tooling costs TUSA would most likely have a vested interest in pushing an in house Tabata design over a remarked SP design in order to get total production numbers up to the break even point for the in house design. Cost of production does not equate to quality when all other factors are considered.
Another variable here is the second stages used in the TUSA packages. A great balanced first stage packaged with an unbalanced second stage would not breathe as well as a mediocre balanced first stage packaged with a balanced second stage. But this performance difference has nothing to do with the first stage. Companies often choose to package products in different combinations to create low middle and high end products in a particular line up. In this case, TUSA is screwing the R400, so to speak, with the second stage it packages it with and I suspect this is what is occurring when you reference that the TUSA regs with a higher dealer cost perform better than the R400 based package. But again, that has zero to do with the relative performance of the R400/Mk 16 first stage.
Scubapro is just as guilty as any other company of using the matching of first/second stage combinations to create low middle and high end combinatons that conform to the company marketing strategy. But unlike most companies, with Scubapro you can also order any SP first stage with any Scubapro second stage. So a knowledgeable, informed and discriminating customer can put together a package that ideally meets their needs.