Well,
I have experience with Microchip's CAN and ECAN modules and they have been OK but not stellar. The ECAN modules appear to be lacking features the Ininfeon series has in all chips.
The 4ma dsP vs 5ma sink/source is about the same. Except that there is 2.5-5V output on IO lines for the Infineon.
I don't technically 'want' a DSP but if my processor had DSP features like hardware multiply that would be fine.
Another plus is that the Infineon line seems very constant. For instance, Port 5 is always Analog Input, port 9 always has the CAN and addition IO lines. Where Microchip seems to change port names, numbers, and locations with models even in the same series. It appears extremely easy to switch code written for the XC8 to XC16 and even a couple XC22 (32bit).
Another factor is that the Infineon line goes to 5xCAN and 5xSerial/SPI. The microchip line goes all the way to 2. I don't think I need 5 can lines, but 3 could be handy here or there.
Microchip support is phenomenal, no doubt. However, I think I've graduated to a big boy's uC
I'd rather not get into Freescale since their pin count is 80 at the min where I only need 20 or 30, and I despise paged memory locations.
I don't know, I do need to consider the dsPic series, but something just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe its the Chinese translations of the datasheets? maybe it's that I know I wouldn't use even 1/4 of its DSP features so why use a DSP ? They seem a little more fragile then a full on uP.
Arg, looking into new processors sucks!