Cayman 718 GPF Failure

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Dan,

Without Prejudice

In the beginning I have always thought that as long as Porsche UK cover the cost of replacing these filters free of charge then we should have no need to go public.

Every case I have dealt with, they have eventually covered the cost, its not been easy, but with the GPF data information we have collected along the way its really helped.

We now know, and the dealers and Porsche know, that the original diagnosis on replacing these filters was incorrect, because the cars fitted with new filters are coming back with the same fault.

Currently we have several cars at the dealers that are having further investigations on the engines to look for possible oil contamination to support the high oil ash levels in the new filters. And from what I am hearing they are struggling to find a definitive fault, again positive news.

The only thing I would add to this is do not dismiss the AOS function on these cars, they need to be checked by the dealers more often.

To me its only a matter of time now after all this unnecessary work as been carried out, that Porsche will realise this is a software issue that needs immediate attention.

Its always been my intention to publish as much technical information has I could to help our owners and Porsche to get to a resolution quickly.

We now have the evidence to confirm that the incorrect oil used and the driving style excuses have no bearing on this problem.

And hopefully the dealers will stop embarrassing themselves by not even mentioning these excuses for the failures.

We need to protect the integrity of these vehicles, restore confidence in these cars, and fix these cars, because their is nothing out there that can equal the driving experience that these cars can give our owners.

I believe we are at a point now where after all the hard work that has been done, and the time spent, we could be closer to a resolution, we just need Porsche Technical to look at the software.

If you would like to be the person that contacts the motoring press then its up to you, I certainly will not be doing that.

Regards
David

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Glenn

Thanks for your post,

I sent off some information this morning to Jimmy, the chap in the video, to see if he would like to look at one of our cars.
Fingers crossed

Regards
Dave

 

[Paul-718gts]

Porsche Post Digital March 2025

Read Porsche Post Digital March 2025 by porscheclubgb on Issuu and browse thousands of other publications on our platform. Start here!

issuu.com

For anyone who hasn’t received their printed copy here is a link to the digital version with the long awaited article on this GPF issue.. pages 74 to 76
Please share your thought’s..
We are still awaiting the stronger forum version and I believe a letter that was supposed to be sent from the club to Porsche HQ Reading..
Wouldn't it be great to get a formal quote/response back from these individuals that were due to receive their personal copy informing both the current and future owners what the conclusive root cause is and corrective action they are implementing to rectify

 

[BrianJ]

As a one-time engine designer (crikey, 50 years ago!) I think that is a very informative and well balanced article. It explains the challenges and the issues in an objective and unemotional way - hard to do when so much cost, obfuscation, work and emotion has been experienced by so many members and owners who have been involved. I sincerely hope that Porsche from both a technical and a marketing perspective give the Club and the owners appropriate recognition for the way that the article (and the work behind it) has been carried out and presented when it could easily have been much more public and confrontational. I think Porsche have been extremely slow to recognise and confront the issue. The comparison between the rapid and public response to eg 911 centre locks and the slow and painful 718 GPF gives the impression that Porsche think the 718 reputation isn't very important to them. Well done to all involved and I hope an appropriate and permanent technical and financial resolution is soon available for every owner.

 

[911hillclimber]

Good article imho in the Post, and not just squeeeezed into a small gap, but 3 pages.
In the front of the Post is the usual column of the Porsche UK rep who seems new and keen. I think he is on the marketing side but also Customer Satisfaction.

Maybe a good route to the (UK) Top Brass?

 

[JohnCRS]

There is still a lot going on behind the scenes (Thank you Dave!) Thanks to Richard Gotch for a well balanced piece which reads very well. It does not fully reflect the emotion and frustration that exists, for example on this forum, but it will hopefully open the door to a dialogue with the Porsche technical department and a discussion about the work Dave has been doing and the results. All along we have been tryng to find out what is actually going on with these GPF's and to avoid the situation where OPC's try to charge owners a great deal of money for what we believe is a mis-diagnosis. Someone must know.

Unfortunately the relationship between the club and Porsche GB is through the marketing department. We would like to talk to the techncal team. Fingers crossed that we will be able to do a follow up.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi John
Without prejudice

Yes you are right on all counts, it would be great to engage with technical, but their absence makes this situation even worse.

I received this post yesterday from Sarah an owner from the 718 forum who I have been helping, I was surprised to see that I have sent 69 posts on this GPF subject over the last 2 years.

Also enclosed is my reply to Sarah, my sign in name is Cyclemotor1.

I will be posting out some more informative on Monday that will finally prove that Porsche have been aware of this issue for a long long time.

Regards

Dave.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Morning everybody, hope you are all well.

This journey we have all been on, has relied on information we have managed to obtain from the dealers involved in trying to fix our cars.

From the first car we looked at, which is now nearly two years ago, we started to see consistent readings on the GPF reports that made no common sense at all. It was difficult to get this information, and sometimes it took weeks and even months to see this report, page 42 on the Vehicle Analysis Report.

The most obvious thing to see was on a supposedly blocked GPF filter showing 100% oil ash, the differential pressure sensor reading always showed very little pressure.

You would expect the pressure in a blocked exhaust to be very high.

Also we never see any soot values in these reports that look normal, they are either zero or again very low readings.

I asked this question to all our owners of these cars, have you ever seen a soot regeneration warning message on their dashboards.

No one has ever seen this message to date, after nearly two years of asking, I even offered a reward to any one that could send me a photo of that warning message, no replies.

Thankfully I managed to get proof that this message can be seen on the dashboard, we managed this purely by accident, one of the cars I was working on, had been treated with a very aggressive DPF cleaner.

This cleaner had coated the GPF substrate so badly that it put the message on the dashboard (Regenerate particle filter see Drivers Manual).

It also left two trouble codes P2463 soot load high, and 26740 Particle filter Regeneration needed.
It also gave two soot values K211 soot load calculated 38.04% and K221 soot load measured 43.14%.

Brilliant, this proved that this car had a fully working soot regeneration warning light, the trouble is we have never seen soot values any way near these levels on any of our cars.

Surely when the dealers are blaming our owners and telling them, that the reason for the Ash levels being so high, is their driving style, short journeys, and wrong oil used.

Short journeys would just trigger more soot regeneration cycles, more warning messages on the dashboard, exactly what it says in the drivers manual.

This is not clearly happening, and its a fundamental function on a emission controlled vehicle.

One thing you see when collecting data from a large sample of cars is common and repetitive readings from these GPF reports.

And you could come to the conclusion that this must be covered under the heading of a Manufacturing Defect, bearing in mind its regarding an emission controlled vehicle.

After months and months of conversations with owners with this issue, and the high repair costs involved we had a break through.

Last August we received an email from Porsche Customer Care , regarding one of our cars that had spent months in a Porsche dealer with a £9,172.00 GPF filter quote, we managed to over turn the decision based on the GPF data provided.

This email apologised on behalf of the dealer concerned for the delays and stress the owner was put through, it also confirmed that at the time they where unaware of any faults with the GPF filters on their vehicles, but did say that the fault codes present allowed the Technical and Warranty Teams to identify the fault to be that of a Manufacturing Defect.

At last.

Around November time last year the dealers received an internal memo from Porsche to stop sending out information to customers which could be not in their interests.

After this memo our owners have found it very difficult to supply us with any information regarding their cars, but we are still trying.

We have recently said on previous forum updates that fitting these new exhausts has not fixed this oil ash issue, because quite of few of our cars fitted with the new filters part no 982 254 400AF are coming back with high oil ash levels over very low mileages covered.

We have asked time and time again for a simple exhaust back pressure test to be carried out to confirm the 100% oil ash readings, to date its not happened.

You shouldn't have to regenerate a GPF filter with an ASH load of 100% to re set the level, regeneration is for soot levels, you cant regenerate ASH if its really present.

We have just received some information that clearly confirms that the GPF part no 982 254 400AF is a modified part brought out to fix this issue regarding abnormally high oil ash levels.

It will surprise you to hear that the original GPF part no 982 254 400K was replaced by the above part number around November 2019.

Also the information states that this new part number 982 254 400AF was fitted on cars with a production date later than December 2019.

So Porsche have clearly known about this potential issue for quite some time, yet we have had to fight to get help from them in every case.

Its funny that the excuse for not replacing the exhaust under the Porsche Extended Warranty was because it was classed as a filter, yet it wasn't written in the policy as an excluded specific part.

You will find now its clearly written in the policy in (brackets).

And its clear that issues with the oil ash levels on these cars were obviously found within the first year of production with these filters, hence the filter change.



No need to say any more really

Sorry its taken so so long this get this far

David

 

[Scrounger]

Great work David but it leads me to ask a question.

Those who have the extended warranty and the newly issued warranty booklet which clearly states that GPFs are excluded, where do they stand? All that Porsche will refer the individual back to is the warranty booklet and still be forced to stump up for a new GPF/Cat.

If Porsche will openly admit that there is an issue with the aforementioned part then surely they should replace with an upgraded part FoC when/if an issue arises. If this will be the case then it would offer owners some form of comfort in the knowledge the 'shouldn't' be a fight to get it changed under warranty. Otherwise, I fear, the 2.0 sales will drop for cars older than 3 years when the warranty expires.

Dan

 

[Greenman986S]

I've already told my OPC that I wont buy a car in the affected range....they effected no knowledge of the issue...

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Dan

Without prejudice

My view on this is that Porsche concentrate on the software on these cars, clearly we have proven that after fitting the original GPF, then fitting a modified GPF, it's proven the filter is not the issue.

Remember they have now admitted they where working on this issue on vehicles not quite a year old, what data did they collect and how does it compare to the data we have now.

Back pressure checks should be mandatory, the soot regeneration warning light needs to function, not just on our 2019 model cars, but on the later cars also.

They need to finally acknowledge this defect to the Porsche community and restore confidence with the owners, and protect the resale values on these cars.

Its their responsibility now to support our owners that are suffering with a manufacturing defect that needs to be fixed, which warranty department pays it doesn't matter.

Dave

 

[JohnCRS]

Dave, an excellent result, thank you. We will keep chasing for confirmation from Porsche GB on these matters and their overall response to the article in this month's Porsche Post.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Thanks John,

Looking forward to catching up with you on the 17th,

Just to remind every body we are still looking at the workings of the differential pressure sensor and other engine sensors regarding their communication to the ECU.

All good stuff, will keep you all informed if we find anything.

We have just hit 40K views,

I would like to thank everybody for following our journey its appreciated

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Just received some really good news this afternoon, we have had one of a cars in with a Diesel Specialist to look at our oil ash problem.

We checked this car last August, after the local Porsche dealer had quoted 8K to change the filter. We carried out an exhaust back pressure check at the owners local garage, it had no pressure at all.

The owner has been driving this car around with the light on ever since, with an 100% oil ash level.

They cleared the oil ash P242F fault code, which was still at 100% and adjusted the parameters of the oil ash % level, in the ECU, that was set way to low.

This is proof that it's definitely the software that's wrong and can be changed.

We are monitoring this vehicle, but we have been told by our Specialist that this a permanent fix.

Regards
Dave

 

[Bill_S]

Hello Dave, like many I guess I have been following this thread with interest. Do we know when the rough dates Porsche changed the warranty wording to specifically exclude the GPF? I assume for new cars as well? I ask as I have just purchased a brand new 2.0L in December and assume it will have part number 982 254 400AF fitted. If this has not solved the issue for 2019 cars then in the absence of any other differences that I'm aware of its likely concerning for later cars as well.

 

[BrianJ]

If you go to the Porsche Approved website and download the current T’s and C’s for the Warranty I can’t see any mention of the GPF at all. Have I missed it?

https://assets-v2.porsche.com/gb/-/media/Project/PCOM/SharedSite/Porsche-Service/Vehicle-Information/Approved-Warranty/PCGB/Porsche-Approved-Warranty-Terms-and-Conditions

 

[JohnCRS]

Good spot Brian. It is stated on the web page, but not in the T's & C's that the web page links to.

Porsche Approved Warranty

Discover a new view on peace of mind with the Porsche Approved Warranty.

www.porsche.com

Now that we have confirmed that the GPF is a result of something else happening, this should not be an issue anyway unless they try to claim it as a consumable. I think we now have a robust defence against that.

 

[Scrounger]

This is lower down on the Porsche warranty web page

'Components that are not covered by the warranty when repaired due to ageing and normal wear and tear are:
wiper blades | tyres | brake pads and discs | shock absorbers | clutch discs and pressure plate | drive belt including deflection and tensioning roller | spark plugs | batteries (including high-voltage battery) | expansion tank PDCC | refrigerant | all bulbs (except xenon and LED lights) | all filters (including particulate filters) | fluids, oils and grease'

The part in red is new and isn't in my new car warranty booklet or my extended warranty booklet.

Dan

 

[Paul-718gts]

This is lower down on the Porsche warranty web page

'Components that are not covered by the warranty when repaired due to ageing and normal wear and tear are:
wiper blades | tyres | brake pads and discs | shock absorbers | clutch discs and pressure plate | drive belt including deflection and tensioning roller | spark plugs | batteries (including high-voltage battery) | expansion tank PDCC | refrigerant | all bulbs (except xenon and LED lights) | all filters (including particulate filters) | fluids, oils and grease'

The part in red is new and isn't in my new car warranty booklet or my extended warranty booklet.

Dan

Hi Dan,

I expect it will be next time you or another owner needs to extend it ..

 

[Paul-718gts]

Dave, an excellent result, thank you. We will keep chasing for confirmation from Porsche GB on these matters and their overall response to the article in this month's Porsche Post.

Hi John,
Realistically what do you believe the chances of the club receiving a response is given the radio silence on this issue so far from Porsche.

We have tried to contain this issue within the club and owners forums but patience is running thin and there will need to be a point where we pull the pin and go to the general motoring press with our story.