Cayman 718 GPF Failure

[Wrightrubber]

I had my GPF replaced 12 months ago now and I went back to the OPC to have it checked aprox. 4 weeks ago, they reported it was 39% full and at stage 2, they informed me at stage 3 it needs a re-gen and the filter light will come on to tell me, I don't think so!!!! didn't come on last time, I'm convinced it's not even there! Then stage 4 it needs replacing at a cost of £7500.
They said it's my style of driving that's the problem and if my journey is less than 30 mins not to drive it....absolutely ridiculous. I asked them if they could check the AOS as I believe mine has got the earlier version which had a diaphragm that was prone to failure and the latest AOS is a sealed unit, they said they could check it at a cost of £264, when I asked what the check consisted of they said:

"I have checked with workshop control; they have advised there is no set pressure test or procedure in place sadly,
We would carry out a fault memory check and check fuel to air ratios to check for any boost or vacuum leaks.
If there are no faults in the memory, it is likely we will not be able to provide a diagnosis.
If there is an issue with the AOS it will flag up the engine management light on the dash"

And they wanted to charge me £264 for this!!!!!

If the engine management light comes on for an AOS failure it's probably too late!!

I am convinced that Porsche know of these problems....why don't they just sort it out!!

Regards

Mark

 

[Paul-718gts]

I agree they must know of these issues just based on the number of cases I have seen on here.
Hopefully someone back in Germany will remove their head from the bucket of sand and see some sense in the facts that their loyal customers are presenting to them.

Not sure how a £7-8k wear and tear part will work in 10 years

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Paul

I agree.

10 years, at this rate it will have had £75K worth of filters on it!! It's just not acceptable that a component that is incorporated into the CAT is not covered under warranty, all the cost is in having to replace the CAT as a complete unit, if the GPF was a stand alone unit it would be a fraction of the cost!

 

[Motorhead]

A year’s use and the GPF is ~40% full … that’s totally unacceptable Mark! On that basis the GPF isn’t fit for service, and if you’ve not already done so I think that you should take-up the matter with the dealer principal in the first instance and then with Porsche HQ in Reading if you’re not getting any satisfaction. Although they’ll bulk at it, and assuming you’re not using a lot of oil, pressing for an AOS replacement on the basis that it’s the only way in which excess oil can find its way into the exhaust system would be my first port of call.

Assuming the correct low ash engine oil has been used and that you’re not driving in heavy stop-start traffic most of the time and then driving like a granny at other times, clearly something is amiss. If the condition of the GPF is being monitored continuously [via backpressure?] I’m surprised that an automatic regeneration isn’t triggered.

You have to wonder if all this would have happened if the term Gasoline Particulate Trap had been used rather than Filter?

A final thought. Aren’t parts fitted by a dealer guaranteed for 2-years?

Jeff

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Jeff

It was a real battle getting it replaced 12 months ago and in the end with the help of David Hitch I got my money back, they had the car nine weeks and the OPC and Porsche GB eventually paid for it, but I have already been told that if it goes again it wouldn't be covered under the 2 year parts warranty as it's wear and tear. It has been serviced by Porsche from day 1 and it has the low ash oil in as proven by the green top on the bottle that was in the frunk last time it was serviced.


In all of this the one thing that really gets my goat is the way Porsche and the dealer network treat their customers.

Mark

 

[Scrounger]

I seem to recall that there was a class action law suit in the US over the RMS and IMS bearing which Porsche lost. These days our US cousins don't have GPFs in most states.

May be worth looking at for those with GPF failures in the UK.

Dan

 

[JohnCRS]

I have not managed to see a service book for the 2019 car (especially the one which says a re-gen light should come on if the filter gets partially blocked).
But - Is there any reference in the service schedule for checking the GPF? Is there any suggestion that, as a service item, it should be replaced? Has any OPC claimed that, as a filter, these should be changed at, say, 20,000, 40,000 or 60,000 miles? I should think even a McLaren owner would baulk at being charged <£7,500 for a filter.

And - where is the bit in the handbook that says driving like Miss Daisy over short distances will result in large repair bills? Perhaps they are softening us up for the EV - the Cayman that you can drive how you like as log as you remember to plug it in!

Dave is collecting data based on all the cases that he has helped and the experiences of owners e.g.
Ways in which OPC's defer any diagnosis.
Rubbish (false) reports
Spurious claims of work done or needing to be done
'Causes' of blockages
Reasons for avoiding any warranty claims
Investigating a variety of related issues

We are also reaching the point where some have had their GPF's replaced and we are hearing that they are getting blocked again fast.

The aim is to build a body of evidence to try and establish the real engineering issues behind this. Something is not working right, some factors may have not been taken into account in the rush to get GPF's to market. Some things have been updated, extra / different sensors may be neededcause of these blocked filters and also to fight the rejection of the cost by the warranty company.

Meantime, any information would be gratefully received and, if you come across anyone else with these or related problems, please refer them to this thread or to Cayman@porscheclubgb.com

Ultimately the aim is to stop owners being fleeced.

 

[Paul-718gts]

I have not managed to see a service book for the 2019 car (especially the one which says a re-gen light should come on if the filter gets partially blocked).
But - Is there any reference in the service schedule for checking the GPF? Is there any suggestion that, as a service item, it should be replaced? Has any OPC claimed that, as a filter, these should be changed at, say, 20,000, 40,000 or 60,000 miles? I should think even a McLaren owner would baulk at being charged <£7,500 for a filter.

And - where is the bit in the handbook that says driving like Miss Daisy over short distances will result in large repair bills? Perhaps they are softening us up for the EV - the Cayman that you can drive how you like as log as you remember to plug it in!

Dave is collecting data based on all the cases that he has helped and the experiences of owners e.g.
Ways in which OPC's defer any diagnosis.
Rubbish (false) reports
Spurious claims of work done or needing to be done
'Causes' of blockages
Reasons for avoiding any warranty claims
Investigating a variety of related issues

We are also reaching the point where some have had their GPF's replaced and we are hearing that they are getting blocked again fast.

The aim is to build a body of evidence to try and establish the real engineering issues behind this. Something is not working right, some factors may have not been taken into account in the rush to get GPF's to market. Some things have been updated, extra / different sensors may be neededcause of these blocked filters and also to fight the rejection of the cost by the warranty company.

Meantime, any information would be gratefully received and, if you come across anyone else with these or related problems, please refer them to this thread or to Cayman@porscheclubgb.com

Ultimately the aim is to stop owners being fleeced.

Well said

 

[Motorhead]

Hi Jeff

It was a real battle getting it replaced 12 months ago and in the end with the help of David Hitch I got my money back, they had the car nine weeks and the OPC and Porsche GB eventually paid for it, but I have already been told that if it goes again it wouldn't be covered under the 2 year parts warranty as it's wear and tear. It has been serviced by Porsche from day 1 and it has the low ash oil in as proven by the green top on the bottle that was in the frunk last time it was serviced.


In all of this the one thing that really gets my goat is the way Porsche and the dealer network treat their customers.

Mark

Dreadful customer service from a so-called premier manufacturer Mark who obviously are only concerned about minimising costs to themselves.

Does your Cayman have the PDK transmission? I’ve run a thought past John in a private conversation: it occurs to me that the turbo engine has a lot of low speed torque, and if you couple this with the PDK’s inclination to change up to the highest gear possible when in auto mode in the interests of low emissions and fuel economy, I’m wondering if this is a factor in clogging the GPF? However, working against that argument is the fact that low engine speed implies lower emissions and less particulates when the engine is at running temperature. Maybe you could try running exclusively in Sport mode and/or using manual shifting to see if there are any benefits?

You could consider getting the AOS replaced at your own expense, if only to see if that cures the problem, and it’ll be to the latest spec too. That way you’ll be able to challenge the dealer’s attitude to the problem and maybe get the issue bumped-up to a higher level within the Porsche organisation.

Jeff

 

[Paul-718gts]

We are up to 10 pages now on this issue and I don’t think we have fully established the number of cars that may have been affected by this issue.
I guess this could provide us all something to help raise its profile with Porsche UK.

Although initially it was thought to be a Cayman issue it’s clear some Boxster owners have also been effected by failed/full GPFs.
Having looked at cars registered across both 2.0 and 2.5 ltr for 2019 the numbers approximate break down as follows -
Cayman around 58 cars
Boxster around 28 cars

To help us build some understanding of a potential common cause should we start to gather some data consisting of Year,model,engine size,gear box (PDK/Manual), sort exhaust (yes/no) ,mileage when GPF registered as full.
I am happy to start.

1. 2019 Box 2.5/PDK/sports/12500

 

[Motorhead]

That’s a very good suggestion Paul, but perhaps it would be better to start a new post highlighting such a survey on the Boxster, Cayman forum which should solicit inputs from owners of both mid-engine cars?

Jeff

 

[Paul-718gts]

Hi Jeff,
Great idea but not sure if this is possible as it appears the group is split into two separate groups ?

 

[Motorhead]

Hmm. My mistake Paul, I assumed that pressing on the Boxster, Cayman tab would allow it … shame that.

Anyway, I hope that you get a good response on here. Maybe you should go ahead with a Boxster post with a link here?

There’s an active Cayman WhatsApp group with a tech section where this subject could be raised. I’m not a fan of SocMed but will give it a try, although unfortunately a lot of stuff soon gets lost in general chatter. Maybe there’s a Boxster group too?

Jeff

 

[bluemike1676]

I am trying to collect information on these failures (3 so far) to see if it is really a big issue. In particular I am trying to understand whether the recommended fix is the result of a proper diagnosis, or just the practice of 'its easier to replace everything'. For example, I would have thought the emissions would be outside normal parameters, but I have no evidence that these have been checked. In fact one passed its MOT after the CEL had been cancelled, only to be told it needed a new GPF when the CEL later returned. It is a heck of a wake up call to be told that the CEL will need £5k+ to be turned off permanently, when the car is otherwise seemingly OK. It is this aspect that makes the issue so concerning for owners, particularly for 718's.

If anyone has any specific information, please pm me.

John

I think you mentioned John that this issue seems to mainly affect ~2019 Cayman's (and Boxsters?) and that was about the time the GPFs were first fitted (see news release here: https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/company/porsche-sale-new-vehicles-europe-15574.html) . The suspicion is that they had to be fitted quickly to an existing model but the design wasn't fully worked out and this lead to a poor design and failures. If so then that means it's a manufacturing defect and I recall the warranty should cover warranty defects so this should be covered. Plus it's a bit of a stretch to include the GPF in the excluded filters category and in any case this exclusion is caveated by '...if due to wear and tear...' which this clearly is not. it would be good to try and find a statement from Porsche about the expected life of the GPF in their cars. As others have said it should be the 'life of the car' but a statement to that affect from Porsche would be powerful. Besides this and recording any other failures we know about, it would be good to try and understand the prevalence of GPF failures in other Porsche models and newer Caymans/Boxsters. I would suspect they are far lower and if so that argues against the cause being the wrong oil (unless of course Cayman owners have a higher propensity to put the wrong oil in their cars). Perhaps other register secretaries could help with this question. It would also be useful to capture the VIN numbers for any failures since this will provide build date and other details. Also if Porsche GB argue this is not a model/year specific issue, which is what they seem to be arguing, then it would be good to ask them to provide a written statement/email confirming their view that '...there is no evidence of an increased GPF failure rate in 2018/2019 Caymans and Boxsters...'. Just my 2c worth.

 

[Wrightrubber]

We are up to 10 pages now on this issue and I don’t think we have fully established the number of cars that may have been affected by this issue.
I guess this could provide us all something to help raise its profile with Porsche UK.

Although initially it was thought to be a Cayman issue it’s clear some Boxster owners have also been effected by failed/full GPFs.
Having looked at cars registered across both 2.0 and 2.5 ltr for 2019 the numbers approximate break down as follows -
Cayman around 58 cars
Boxster around 28 cars

To help us build some understanding of a potential common cause should we start to gather some data consisting of Year,model,engine size,gear box (PDK/Manual), sort exhaust (yes/no) ,mileage when GPF registered as full.
I am happy to start.

1. 2019 Box 2.5/PDK/sports/12500

2. 2019 Cay 2.0/PDK/Sports/14000

 

[bluemike1676]

Well done for persisting with this issue Dave despite the apparent lack of progress.

It seems that you’re confirming my thoughts which are gravitating to potential issues with the electronic monitoring system(s) not triggering the necessary warning to the driver to carry out the necessary regeneration process.

I do find it odd that no Boxster owners have approached you reporting the GPF issue. I can’t believe that the problem is specific to the earlier 718 Caymans, although according the How Many Left website more base Caymans were registered between 2018 and 2020 [35 versus 24], although not all will have a GPF fitted.

Please continue to keep us updated.

Jeff

in case useful, here is the UK registration data for Caymans....

And in tabular format for 2019-2020

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Everybody,
Without Prejudice

Hope you are all well,

I have been very busy over the last few weeks helping quite a few drivers with GPF issues.

We are concentrating on the Val report information on the GPF, and trying to make some sense of it.

I have collected quite a few Val reports from vehicles that required a new GPF, and these are some common things I have found, starting from the top of the diagnostic report and working down.
.
1. The soot load calculated and measured figures, always show very low % figures, or no figures at all, and the latest cars had no reported figures at all.
This is very worrying as this data is very important, because the soot loading is the main driver for regeneration.

2. Oil ash load measured, this is the reading that if found to be around 100% condemns the GPF filter.
We are told that the GPF is blocked and needs replacing, yet all the drivers of the cars I have been involved with have reported no lack of performance.
You would expect with a blocked exhaust, which would create back pressure to be picked up.
I have said before on this forum, have the GPF filters been checked for backpressure before removal with a simple vacuum gauge, or smoke tested on removal.
With all the experience I have had with these cars, I believe these GPF filters are not blocked, and do not require replacing.

3. Exhaust gas temperature calculated in the filter, and upstream of filter, on a GPF at 100% you always see a reasonable temperature from the in filter calculation, lets say around 250/350 degrees C.
But when you look at the upstream temperature its always a lot lower, I have seen as low as 18 degrees C.
Something wrong here, they should be similar temperatures usually within 10% of each other.
Why are these temperatures calculated, this GPF system has no temperature sensors fitted as separate parts, so how does it work.

3. Differential Pressure current value, this is the only actual value reported on the GPF report, all the others are measured or calculated.
The differential pressure sensors role is to monitor the differential pressure difference between the front and rear of the GPF, which is the soot loading.
Most of the readings I have seen on the Val reports ,show very low reading in hPa, and the most recent reports I have, showed no reading at all, 0.00 hPa.
This soot needs to be dealt with, but you would expect a blocked GPF filter to have a high reading from the differential sensor, but we are not seeing that at the moment.
This sensor is crucial to the running of the GPF, with regards to soot loading, which then should instruct the engine management system to inform the driver to carry out a road regeneration, that's documented in the drivers manual.

No one has seen the GPF light on the dashboard, yet technical insist it should come on when the soot load is getting high.

Also the differential pressure sensor can only monitor the soot value, how is the ash load measured.
Only Radio frequency sensors (RF) can measure both soot and ash values, not sure if they are on these cars.
We are told by the dealers that when the oil /ash reading is between 64% to 85% which is level 4, this light should come on, it hasn't on all the cars I have been involved with.
Level 5 is 86% to 99%, and level 6 is 100%.

Also we are carrying out regenerations on these cars, to try and lower the oil ash level %, ash is none combustible, its the soot that we need to clear

These cars have continued on till the engine light comes on, with the permitted to drive warning light, and that usual conversation with a service advisor trying to explain the average £7,500.00 repair.

The conversation usually goes like this, you must have put in the wrong engine oil, or topped it up, with the wrong engine oil, and you are doing to many short journeys, has we can apparently see on your Val report all your short journeys, and the car ticking over for far to long, and you cannot use the car for half hour journeys.

All the cars I have dealt with have been sold and serviced by the dealers.

So to, sum up its all your fault, and no, its not covered under your extended warranty, has we have decided the GPF filter is classed as a service part, like an oil filter, wear and tear, service item.
How can the GPF filter be classed as a wear and tear part, it has as no moving parts, and no service interval to change it.
And its not mentioned in the Warranty policy book as an excluded part, and it doesn't come has a separate part, its part of the catalyzer.

So to finish, we are carrying out more research into this issue, and we will not rest, till its sorted out.

Its a real shame that Porsche technical couldn't engage with us to get to grips with this problem
.
When you look at the amazing technology that went into building the Taycan, this should be a walk in the park.

Other manufactures are struggling also with these new GPF systems, its all over the internet.

And after all these GPF systems will stop people getting lung cancer from these particulate emissions that have been with us for far to long, GPF filters are here to stay, they need to work.

Its worth the time and effort to sort this out.

Sorry for going on,
Will keep in touch
David

 

[Wrightrubber]

Excellent work David, it would be great if Porsche technical would engage with us to explain what is going on here, this problem is not going away and i believe more and more cars are going to have this issue and Porsche's only answer is to change the GPF at a cost of £7500 with no explanation of the real cause and owners have no assurances that it won 't happen again. I honestly cannot believe an expensive component like this is not covered under the extended warranty, this most definitely is not a wear and tear part.
Appreciate the time and effort you have put into this David, the search for the truth continues.
Regards
Mark

 

[Paul-718gts]

Yes great work Dave, I am with you 100% on this to find both the root cause and solution for both current and future drivers of what is fundamentally a fantastic drivers car..
It’s just a shame the Brand doesn’t have the same view point of the owners.

Onwards and upwards

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Thanks Guys