[Paul-Bracq-BMW]

Originally Posted by BMWZ4

oh crap.... just realized that image for the n55 was an M2 engine not a 235 n55. Dang. Sorry!

Lol!

[Law]

Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster

" Marketing trickery " sure is a strong statement. Potentially libel.

Personally I would say your stance regarding this is much too strong without clear evidence.

It's much more likely that the error was an oversight. So many people in these threads barely know the difference between open and closed deck and it wouldn't be surprising at all to me to find that the person that wrote the material was in error or reversed the wording.


I would think that's a lot more likely than a deliberate plot to fool the customer.

Quite a large scale oversight for such a technical term ("closed-deck"), as you've implied, to be thrown around in so many official publications (official website, official press release, etc.)
The repercussions of such a specific & technical claim is far-reaching as the erroneous claim has even been carried over to magazine publications.

This is not just a simple misunderstanding/mislabeling like accidentally misrepresenting a European model (sans DOT reflectors, etc.) as a N. American spec car, for example.

Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster

Anyone of course that feels that they got ripped off after relying on minor details in a press release ( like what type of tires will come on the vehicle ) will likely have a difficult time proving their case ...

Agreed that potential litigation would be difficult to pursue but disagree with the tire comparison.
The "closed-deck" claim is more akin to a manufacturer claiming that a car comes equipped with a dual-clutch transmission when in reality it is equipped with a torque converter automatic.
While in both cases, most of general public wouldn't understand nor be able to tell the difference, there is a huge technical difference indeed.


My point is that BMW knows exactly what a "closed-deck" is. A technical term like that is not just "accidentally" thrown around for the sake of sounding sophisticated. Someone knowingly approved the use of the term to erroneously apply to the N55B30T0.
Subsequent emails from BMW as seen on this board have continued to stick to the tale.
To me, that constitutes as "trickery", as BMW had deliberately misrepresented the product to those who understand the meaning of the term.

[nanceman]

Perhaps the original plan was to debut the B58 in the M2?

[Artemis]

Note: post #20 of this thread (BMWNA website change) has now been integrated/added (in)to post #1.

[bm2]

Looks closed deck in rendering :

[sandlion]

Same block but they could have closed the deck - but picks or it didn't happen!

[zenmaster]

I thought I'd contacted the most appropriate person at BMW Group to answer the question in an authoritative manner. This is their "engine expert" product spokesperson. Haven't seen anything else here but pure speculation on the subject. The front page is pure speculation presented as fact.

Now that the closed deck detail has been recently removed after 15 months, the event is equivalent to "BMW just corrected their false-advertising mistake".

[Destroya]

There is only one way to prove or disprove the closed deck theory. Who wants to do this?

[chris719]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

I thought I'd contacted the most appropriate person at BMW Group to answer the question in an authoritative manner. This is their "engine expert" product spokesperson. Haven't seen anything else here but pure speculation on the subject. The front page is pure speculation presented as fact.

Now that the closed deck detail has been recently removed after 15 months, the event is equivalent to "BMW just corrected their false-advertising mistake".

Yeah, because it's totally more plausible they cast another cylinder head for the M2 alone (parts bin car) and then decided to first remove it from BMW AG press materials and then BMW NA press materials.

No way could it just be text from an early revision of the document or a possibly copy/paste from S55 info that slipped through.

[zenmaster]

Originally Posted by chris719

Yeah, because it's totally more plausible they cast another cylinder head for the M2 alone (parts bin car) and then decided to first remove it from BMW AG press materials and then BMW NA press materials.

No way could it just be text from an early revision of the document or a possibly copy/paste from S55 info that slipped through.

Has nothing to do with plausibility.

[raysspl]

Closed deck blocks usually tend to be far stronger than open deck

[Paul-Bracq-BMW]

Originally Posted by sandlion

Same block but they could have closed the deck - but picks or it didn't happen!

It wouldn't make sense per costs.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

Has nothing to do with plausibility.

Lol, whatever helps you sleep at night. Whether it's closed or open deck makes zero performance difference in this application. Fanboys get so defensive when you suggest that it doesn't make sense for BMW to spend the money to cast another unique cylinder head for an outgoing engine in a low-volume car.

The evidence so far overwhelmingly points to an error in the documentation. If you can't see that then I am afraid your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are lacking. Yeah, you're going to say that a BMW NA mouthpiece told you it had a closed deck - but the proof is in the car or CAD model - not what some guy in Woodcliff Lake says in an email. His conclusions may be based on the same incorrect information.

I want it to have a closed deck, it would be neat if it did, but I would not bet on it.

[Tag]

"CLOSED-DECK ENGINE CONTROVERSY SOLVED"

LOLlolololololullullululululzzzzzzz

[SeanWRT]

It probably is the BMW connection within bimmerpost that put this front page as a way of settling the controversy.

Deck being closed or not doesn't make a difference in performance in N55 application. Open deck is robust way more than enough and provides the better cooling that the system needs if anything.

This had not been a big mistake to make until BMW attempted to correct it the way it did. Nobody likes being lied to but BMW already made it feel like so. The whole thing to me as a customer puts the integrity of the company in question.

[bm2]

Min 2:45 mentions closed deck desing!!

[Paul-Bracq-BMW]

Originally Posted by SeanWRT

It probably is the BMW connection within bimmerpost that put this front page as a way of settling the controversy.

Deck being closed or not doesn't make a difference in performance in N55 application. Open deck is robust way more than enough and provides the better cooling that the system needs if anything.

This had not been a big mistake to make until BMW attempted to correct it the way it did. Nobody likes being lied to but BMW already made it feel like so. The whole thing to me as a customer puts the integrity of the company in question.

Closed deck VS open deck makes a huge difference for tuning and racing as a closed deck engine can bear higher loads for longer. That's why all performance and racing engines are of closed deck design. Also there is a reason why the successor of the N55, the B58 is of closed deck design...

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by bm2

[VIDEO]
Min 2:45 mentions closed deck design!!

The video section from 02:36 to 02:59 features almost word-for-word in the October 2015 press release.

However, as indicated in the first post of this thread (see here), that particular paragraph was rephrased in February 2016 (updated version of the press release).

October 2015:



February 2016:

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by Tag

"CLOSED-DECK ENGINE CONTROVERSY SOLVED"
LOLlolololololullullululululzzzzzzz

Originally Posted by SeanWRT

It probably is the BMW connection within bimmerpost that put this front page as a way of settling the controversy.

Neutral thread title: "Comparison: BMW F87 M2 press releases of October 2015 and February 2016".

I was neither involved in referring this thread on the Bimmerpost front page nor proposed the headline "BMW M2 closed-deck engine controversy solved". If I had been asked, I would have suggested: "BMW M2 engine deck type controversy: new clues ?".

As a matter of fact, we will know for sure the M2 engine deck type as soon as someone posts pictures of an opened M2 engine (N55B30T0).

The answer is out there, right under the M2 hood.

[doug_999]

Ok, I hate to say it, but I personally had no idea what a closed deck engine is. I do now of course and I think this thread is about being right or wrong (for most people).

That said, I would agree that taking it out of the marketing piece made sense even if it is a closed deck - because it just doesn't make sense to the average person buying the M2.

Edit: I'm not going to lie, I really want to know now too, and personally I don't think it matters one bit in this engine.

[SeanWRT]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Neutral thread title: "Comparison: BMW F87 M2 press releases of October 2015 and February 2016".

I was neither involved in referring this thread on the Bimmerpost front page nor proposed the headline "BMW M2 closed-deck engine controversy solved". If I had been asked, I would have suggested: "BMW M2 engine deck type controversy: new clues ?".

As a matter of fact, we will know for sure the M2 engine deck type as soon as someone posts pictures of an opened M2 engine (N55B30T0).

The answer is out there, right under the M2 hood.

I was referring to the one that put you on front page trying to make a conclusion without solid material.

[F32Fleet]

Has anyone tried REALOEM.com?