Greenman986S
PCGB Member
Given that no board minutes have been published for 6 months, including the AGM, and there is no calendar of meetings, I wouldn't holding my breath for any support from the board.
Cayman 718 GPF Failure
- Thread starter Wrightrubber
- Start date
The club need to give details of the best number to call, the best person to talk to in the head office in the UK.
Also, doesn’t the head of Porsche write a few column inches in the Porsche Post?
That must be a good contact initially, and she can then open correct points of contact.
Does this poor design apply to other markets, especially the USA?
For once, glad I have a 987.2
Also, doesn’t the head of Porsche write a few column inches in the Porsche Post?
That must be a good contact initially, and she can then open correct points of contact.
Does this poor design apply to other markets, especially the USA?
For once, glad I have a 987.2
You’d hope that the Club would be able to provide guidance on the most appropriate contact in this case Graham, but that person will have to be sufficiently convinced and committed to run with it and be prepared to take-up the matter with Stuttgart.
I’m not sure if the US cars are fitted with the GPF? Probably not because I can’t see the Americans accepting such a dire situation without complaining, and Porsche would be quick to act to avoid a class action.
Jeff
I’m not sure if the US cars are fitted with the GPF? Probably not because I can’t see the Americans accepting such a dire situation without complaining, and Porsche would be quick to act to avoid a class action.
Jeff
There is of course nothing stopping anyone from identifying relevant individuals in Porsche Cars GB and Porsche AG and contacting them directly about this issue so if you think that is appropriate feel free to carry on.
I offered to raise this with the Board as I think it would be worth seeing if the right person can have a quiet word in the right ear to try and unlock the current situation. It may work, it may not but there is nothing to lose by trying. On that basis I will drop them a line to see if anything can be done.
I offered to raise this with the Board as I think it would be worth seeing if the right person can have a quiet word in the right ear to try and unlock the current situation. It may work, it may not but there is nothing to lose by trying. On that basis I will drop them a line to see if anything can be done.
All, I have had a response from the Board and they have agreed to look at this in more detail with a view of approaching Porsche Cars GB.
On that basis I will liaise with Dave in the background to agree the best way forward from his perspective and hopefully we will be able to make some progress.
On that basis I will liaise with Dave in the background to agree the best way forward from his perspective and hopefully we will be able to make some progress.
Hi Andy,
More than happy to also support if needed.
Dave has my number as we have been in discussions daily for the past 8 to 10 weeks.
Perhaps I might add my perspective as RS and someone who has been in contact with Dave from the outset. We are up to 279 posts and 16000+ views, so I think it fair to say it has got people's attention, and rightly so.
Firstly, our club objective, put simply, is to help members enjoy their cars and, if necessary, support them in resolving issues. Through Dave's efforts and research, every GPF related case that has come to our notice has received that support and continues to have it. Large bills have been avoided and fixes put in place but now, after some months, it is becoming clear that these fixes are not resolving the issue in many cases.
As we escalate this case we need to be clear what we want from Porsche. The current position seems to be that Porsche GB would like to keep things on a case by case basis. Problem arises, problem gets fixed, = no problem. And if this were the case at no cost to the owner we probably would not have this thread. After all it is appears to affect a relative small proportion of 718 production.
The fact that the problem is not being fixed is a main cause for escalation. The key points within that are:
- owners are being given the run around by the OPC - there is no consistent approach and no confidence in their expertise on the subject.
- OPC's assessment of a blocked GPF is at best the identification of the result. At no point have they diagnosed the cause of the problem.
- OPC's reliance on the PIWIS and other diagnostic tools is flawed, as evidenced by the reports that Dave has studied. Some of the results are nonsense.
- Tests that might help in the diagnosis are not being done - differential pressure, exhaust back pressure, AOS, etc. In some cases the OPC's do not have the tools, in other cases they are not part of the process. (e.g. when they have replaced the GPF they do not do a VAL report to look at the results, they simply go by the fact that the CEL light goes out and stays out)
- recent cases where new GPF's have been fitted are showing high contaimination of the GPF's after only one or two thousand miles. This is at present unresolved but indications are that the OPC solution would be to just keep replacing the GPF every time it gets blocked, and expect the owner to pay. This is unacceptable.
- something must have changed at the end of 2019, as we have no 2020 or later cars on record with this GPF problem. What are the changes and would the updated components be a fix for the 2019 cars. We know that both AOS and DPS have been updated.
Finally, from contact with various technicians, there is a suspicion that there are many more cases that have not come to our attention. Are some being 'fixed' under warranty, are some owners paying up?
My assessment of what is required from escalation is:
1. Contact with Porsche GB's technical department to review specific cases and answer the questions that have arisen from Dave Hitch's research and analysis.
2. An accurate cause and effect diagnosis as to what is actually happening to these cars
3. Identification of the full solution to the problem that resolves it once and for all
4. Clarity as to which cars are affected, both to alert owners and remove the cloud over other 718's which are nlikely to have this issue.
Let's keep focussed on this objective.
Firstly, our club objective, put simply, is to help members enjoy their cars and, if necessary, support them in resolving issues. Through Dave's efforts and research, every GPF related case that has come to our notice has received that support and continues to have it. Large bills have been avoided and fixes put in place but now, after some months, it is becoming clear that these fixes are not resolving the issue in many cases.
As we escalate this case we need to be clear what we want from Porsche. The current position seems to be that Porsche GB would like to keep things on a case by case basis. Problem arises, problem gets fixed, = no problem. And if this were the case at no cost to the owner we probably would not have this thread. After all it is appears to affect a relative small proportion of 718 production.
The fact that the problem is not being fixed is a main cause for escalation. The key points within that are:
- owners are being given the run around by the OPC - there is no consistent approach and no confidence in their expertise on the subject.
- OPC's assessment of a blocked GPF is at best the identification of the result. At no point have they diagnosed the cause of the problem.
- OPC's reliance on the PIWIS and other diagnostic tools is flawed, as evidenced by the reports that Dave has studied. Some of the results are nonsense.
- Tests that might help in the diagnosis are not being done - differential pressure, exhaust back pressure, AOS, etc. In some cases the OPC's do not have the tools, in other cases they are not part of the process. (e.g. when they have replaced the GPF they do not do a VAL report to look at the results, they simply go by the fact that the CEL light goes out and stays out)
- recent cases where new GPF's have been fitted are showing high contaimination of the GPF's after only one or two thousand miles. This is at present unresolved but indications are that the OPC solution would be to just keep replacing the GPF every time it gets blocked, and expect the owner to pay. This is unacceptable.
- something must have changed at the end of 2019, as we have no 2020 or later cars on record with this GPF problem. What are the changes and would the updated components be a fix for the 2019 cars. We know that both AOS and DPS have been updated.
Finally, from contact with various technicians, there is a suspicion that there are many more cases that have not come to our attention. Are some being 'fixed' under warranty, are some owners paying up?
My assessment of what is required from escalation is:
1. Contact with Porsche GB's technical department to review specific cases and answer the questions that have arisen from Dave Hitch's research and analysis.
2. An accurate cause and effect diagnosis as to what is actually happening to these cars
3. Identification of the full solution to the problem that resolves it once and for all
4. Clarity as to which cars are affected, both to alert owners and remove the cloud over other 718's which are nlikely to have this issue.
Let's keep focussed on this objective.
Hi John,
Thanks for this, very helpful.
To be clear my intention is to assist you, Dave and all our members who appear to have been impacted by this issue and to see if we can encourage Porsche Cars GB and Porsche AG to be a little more open in their dialogue and assistance and ultimately to try and come to a satisfactory conclusion.
To this end I dropped a note to the Board on Sunday to seek support from them regarding this issue and Nick responded later that day to confirm that they would be happy to do so. He also asked for a summary of the current situation which you appear to have provided above.
With regards to next steps, I am equally happy to stand aside and let you and Dave continue if you think this would be more appropriate or continue supporting you if you think that would be helpful. Please let me know your thoughts but either way we need to provide the summary to the Board in order for them to pick this up and start the dialogue with Porsche.
Thanks John
Andy G.
Thanks for this, very helpful.
To be clear my intention is to assist you, Dave and all our members who appear to have been impacted by this issue and to see if we can encourage Porsche Cars GB and Porsche AG to be a little more open in their dialogue and assistance and ultimately to try and come to a satisfactory conclusion.
To this end I dropped a note to the Board on Sunday to seek support from them regarding this issue and Nick responded later that day to confirm that they would be happy to do so. He also asked for a summary of the current situation which you appear to have provided above.
With regards to next steps, I am equally happy to stand aside and let you and Dave continue if you think this would be more appropriate or continue supporting you if you think that would be helpful. Please let me know your thoughts but either way we need to provide the summary to the Board in order for them to pick this up and start the dialogue with Porsche.
Thanks John
Andy G.
Thanks Andy.
I appreciate it being raised with Nick, for the Board. I think it is important to set out what we want the Board to actually do, which is to facilitate contact with Porsche GB so that the issues can be discussed, and that we need to bring Dave Hitch to that table and get some answers as described above. Please carry on with your dialogue. I am happy to provide any additional information that is needed to make this happen.
As an aside, one feature of this issue is the poor treatment that some of our members have received from OPC's. Some might be rooted in the innability of the OPC's to provide information that is requested - a defence tactic, but other aspects are down to simple 'we know best' arrogance. But I dont think this is limited to this matter so, for the moment, we focus on the technical solutions.
Thank you to everyone involved, especially to those who have been in contact with Dave about their cars.
John
I appreciate it being raised with Nick, for the Board. I think it is important to set out what we want the Board to actually do, which is to facilitate contact with Porsche GB so that the issues can be discussed, and that we need to bring Dave Hitch to that table and get some answers as described above. Please carry on with your dialogue. I am happy to provide any additional information that is needed to make this happen.
As an aside, one feature of this issue is the poor treatment that some of our members have received from OPC's. Some might be rooted in the innability of the OPC's to provide information that is requested - a defence tactic, but other aspects are down to simple 'we know best' arrogance. But I dont think this is limited to this matter so, for the moment, we focus on the technical solutions.
Thank you to everyone involved, especially to those who have been in contact with Dave about their cars.
John
Thanks John, I think we're aligned.
I think it might be worth the 3 of us initially having a conversation to make sure we're all clear on the key points and agree the approach you would like to take.
I'm about tomorrow and Thursday if you want to have an initial conversation. Drop me a PM with your details if this would be convenient.
Thanks
Andy G.
I think it might be worth the 3 of us initially having a conversation to make sure we're all clear on the key points and agree the approach you would like to take.
I'm about tomorrow and Thursday if you want to have an initial conversation. Drop me a PM with your details if this would be convenient.
Thanks
Andy G.
Hi Guys & Girls
Without prejudice
Some more information regarding what seems to be happening after Dealers have fitted a new GPF filter on 2 of our cars.
We have two examples of vehicles that had GPF filters fitted by the dealers and after the filter was replaced the oil / ash level, instead of being zero, was unfortunately not the case.
Our first 2 cases, happen to be the first cars that we managed to convince the dealers and Porsche, that this fault on these cars was clearly a manufacturing defect and we would not be paying either a contribution, or the full cost of repairs.
We managed to reverse their decision to charge us, using technical information we collected after looking at the Val GPF reports on each car.
The information on the Val GPF report page 42, clearly showed that these 4 measurements in the reports were showing odd data.
Soot load, calculated and measured values showed odd, and very low readings.
Oil / ash load measured 100% was suggesting the GPF must be blocked, yet these cars drove perfectly well with no performance issues reported.
The exhaust gas temperature upstream of GPF filter was unusually low, compared with the exhaust in filter temperature. These temperatures are calculated, suspect the algorithm providing this information could be wrong, if this car uses an algorithm.
The differential pressure sensor readings seem to be far too low, bearing in mind the dealers are suggesting the GPF is blocked with Ash. Usually you would see higher pressure readings on a blocked filter.
The dealers agreed that after the filters were fitted, the cars could come back to have the oil / ash % level checked. We needed this information to give us confidence that their diagnosis to fit this very expensive part was correct. Bearing in mind that a GPF filter should last a long time, and these cars had very low mileages.
The first car went back into the dealer after 1000 miles covered with the new GPF fitted, and unfortunately the Val GPF report showed an oil / ash value of 38.04 %. The driver of the car had driven the vehicle with many deceleration runs to help keep the filter clear.
We requested to see his GPF condition report after the filter was replaced, before the vehicle left the garage, but unfortunately we had wait a long time to get it.
Thankfully we now have that report, details as follows, I have written this information as it was sent to us.
Requires new GPF filter GPF Filter Replaced
Soot load calculated 0.00 % 0.00 %
Soot load measured 0.00 % 27.45 %
Oil ash load measured 100 % 0.00 %
Exhaust gas temp in filter calculated 368.35 degrees C 414.98 degrees C
Exhaust gas temp upstream calculated 121.48 degrees C 25.60 degrees C
Differential pressure value 2.65 hPa 2.65 hPa
I have highlighted the areas of concern, questions to Porsche Technical
1. Why is the soot load value on the new filter so high 27.45 %
2. Why again are we seeing such a low upstream gas temperature of 25.60 degrees C, which is lower than the faulty GPF temperature we removed. Bearing in mind this is upstream, which is nearer to the exhaust manifold. But as we know, this is a calculated measurement.
3. Why is the differential pressure sensor value the same
Just something else I found while checking through the only customer Val Log I have on another vehicle.
This vehicle requires a new filter, and it’s been authorised to be fitted, these Val logs have 218 pages, on page 42 it shows us the GPF exhaust temperature info.
GPF in filter calculated temperature 316.16 degrees C
GPF upstream calculated temperature 39.79 degrees C
After going through all the pages, I found on page 72, these Catalytic convertor temperatures.
Exhaust catalytic convertor temperature 408.41 degrees C
Exhaust temperature downstream of catalytic convertor 408.41 degrees C
Question to Porsche Technical
If you look at this data on our calculated GPF temperatures, against the actual Catalytic convertor temperatures on this exhaust system it makes no sense at all.
Bearing in mind the GPF and the Catalytic convertor are joined together, one part.
You would expect that the exhaust temperatures in a GPF would need to be correct in order for the ECU to monitor and control the regenerations required if the driving style is not suitable for normal regenerations.
Seems to me that the actual Catalytic convertor exhaust temperatures could be used instead of our calculated temperatures in the algorithm, if the car has one.
We only need around 600 degrees to burn the soot off, and we only seem to get high exhaust in filter temperatures, after we have done a regeneration on the GPF, with the car stood still.
The second car was a real battle, this car was purchased from a Porsche Dealer and when the GPF fault was identified the customer was blamed for putting in the wrong engine oil.
We requested from the dealer the service history on his car and found on the service carried out before he purchased it, the wrong engine oil was fitted by another Porsche dealer.
The Dealer still insisted that the customer had to pay for the filter
We then requested the pre-sale Val GPF report from the supplying dealer, which took weeks to come, when it came it didn’t look like the usual Val GPF report. It was a spread sheet made up with figures.
We insisted they send us the correct Val GPF report, and when it finally came it showed the car went out with a oil / ash reading of 89%. The level 4 soot loading warning light should have been on the dash.
The new GPF was ordered, and fitted, when the customer finally picked up his car, he noticed that the fuel gauge was nearly empty, he had just put in £80.00 of fuel before he dropped it off.
He asked the service adviser where had all his fuel gone, the reply was, we needed to do some regenerations and lots of road tests after fitting the new filter.
The car went back in after 1300 miles, for the oil / ash level to be checked has agreed, but when the customer asked for the Val GPF report, he met with some resistance, he wouldn’t leave the service department till he got a copy of his report.
To his amazement the oil / ash measured value was at 62.75 %. The exhaust gas upstream temperature was 17.35 degrees C, and the in filter temperature was 199.79 degrees C.
He questioned the oil / ash level %, and was told by the reception chap that this figure can go up and down. He left the service department very unhappy, and disappointed.
Sadly the customer sold his car, because to him it was clear that the car wasn’t fixed.
Our third customers car is in the garage at the moment having its GPF filter replaced, and we are waiting for the GPF Val report, to see if the ash load and exhaust temperature figures are correct.
We have quite a few cars at the moment being monitored with an oil / ash level around 85%, driving perfectly well, no light on. We are using diagnostic testers that can give us the same information as what we see on the Porsche diagnostic Report.
On Wednesday I had a call from one of our members with a GPF issue that’s being looked by a Porsche dealer at the moment. This car has been in the workshop several times for this fault and they have kindly let us see the GPF information on the car. Has a result of my involvement and the dealers help we found a faulty differential pressure sensor which was affecting the upstream exhaust temperature reading.
Before the sensor was replaced the temperature reading was 21.35 degrees C, after the sensor was replaced it was 352.10 degrees C, an increase of 330.75 degrees.
The old sensor was showing a pressure reading of 2.65 hPa, and the new sensors reading was 4.23 hPa. The old sensor didn’t flag an engine warning light, so it was under the radar.
What's funny is we have seen this 2.65 hPa differential pressure sensor reading before, see above.
After looking at an earlier Val GPF report on this car we found the same pressure reading of 2.65 hPa,
Brilliant information, proving a clear link between the differential pressure sensor and the exhaust upstream temperature.
The reason for the call was to tell me, that the dealer told our member that a memo was sent out to all Porsche Dealers to not send out any information, including Val reports, and any printed information etc.
So thankfully over the last 10 months we have gathered enough information to prove that the GPF control of our cars is not correct.
The absence of the particulate filter warning light on the dashboard on all the cars we have investigated is proof that this system is not working correctly on these cars.
You may remember I sent out a reward of £100.00 to anybody that drives one of these 2019 cars, that can send us a photo of the particulate warning light coming on, still waiting.
We are now at a stage in this investigation on these cars, that even when a new filter is fitted it hasn’t fixed the fault, and the first 2 cars mentioned above were sent out not fixed correctly.
The GPF Val reports on both these cars clearly showed ash and temperature reading issues.
We must remember that any diagnostic information on your car is your property and you should be intitled to have a look at it at any time.
We have put in a lot of time and effort in looking into the diagnostic data and what’s happening to these cars, because Porsche and the dealers have said it’s the customer that’s caused the failure of these GPF filters, wrong engine oil, and driving style, and they cant be used on half hour journeys.
We will push on
Dave
Without prejudice
Some more information regarding what seems to be happening after Dealers have fitted a new GPF filter on 2 of our cars.
We have two examples of vehicles that had GPF filters fitted by the dealers and after the filter was replaced the oil / ash level, instead of being zero, was unfortunately not the case.
Our first 2 cases, happen to be the first cars that we managed to convince the dealers and Porsche, that this fault on these cars was clearly a manufacturing defect and we would not be paying either a contribution, or the full cost of repairs.
We managed to reverse their decision to charge us, using technical information we collected after looking at the Val GPF reports on each car.
The information on the Val GPF report page 42, clearly showed that these 4 measurements in the reports were showing odd data.
Soot load, calculated and measured values showed odd, and very low readings.
Oil / ash load measured 100% was suggesting the GPF must be blocked, yet these cars drove perfectly well with no performance issues reported.
The exhaust gas temperature upstream of GPF filter was unusually low, compared with the exhaust in filter temperature. These temperatures are calculated, suspect the algorithm providing this information could be wrong, if this car uses an algorithm.
The differential pressure sensor readings seem to be far too low, bearing in mind the dealers are suggesting the GPF is blocked with Ash. Usually you would see higher pressure readings on a blocked filter.
The dealers agreed that after the filters were fitted, the cars could come back to have the oil / ash % level checked. We needed this information to give us confidence that their diagnosis to fit this very expensive part was correct. Bearing in mind that a GPF filter should last a long time, and these cars had very low mileages.
The first car went back into the dealer after 1000 miles covered with the new GPF fitted, and unfortunately the Val GPF report showed an oil / ash value of 38.04 %. The driver of the car had driven the vehicle with many deceleration runs to help keep the filter clear.
We requested to see his GPF condition report after the filter was replaced, before the vehicle left the garage, but unfortunately we had wait a long time to get it.
Thankfully we now have that report, details as follows, I have written this information as it was sent to us.
Requires new GPF filter GPF Filter Replaced
Soot load calculated 0.00 % 0.00 %
Soot load measured 0.00 % 27.45 %
Oil ash load measured 100 % 0.00 %
Exhaust gas temp in filter calculated 368.35 degrees C 414.98 degrees C
Exhaust gas temp upstream calculated 121.48 degrees C 25.60 degrees C
Differential pressure value 2.65 hPa 2.65 hPa
I have highlighted the areas of concern, questions to Porsche Technical
1. Why is the soot load value on the new filter so high 27.45 %
2. Why again are we seeing such a low upstream gas temperature of 25.60 degrees C, which is lower than the faulty GPF temperature we removed. Bearing in mind this is upstream, which is nearer to the exhaust manifold. But as we know, this is a calculated measurement.
3. Why is the differential pressure sensor value the same
Just something else I found while checking through the only customer Val Log I have on another vehicle.
This vehicle requires a new filter, and it’s been authorised to be fitted, these Val logs have 218 pages, on page 42 it shows us the GPF exhaust temperature info.
GPF in filter calculated temperature 316.16 degrees C
GPF upstream calculated temperature 39.79 degrees C
After going through all the pages, I found on page 72, these Catalytic convertor temperatures.
Exhaust catalytic convertor temperature 408.41 degrees C
Exhaust temperature downstream of catalytic convertor 408.41 degrees C
Question to Porsche Technical
If you look at this data on our calculated GPF temperatures, against the actual Catalytic convertor temperatures on this exhaust system it makes no sense at all.
Bearing in mind the GPF and the Catalytic convertor are joined together, one part.
You would expect that the exhaust temperatures in a GPF would need to be correct in order for the ECU to monitor and control the regenerations required if the driving style is not suitable for normal regenerations.
Seems to me that the actual Catalytic convertor exhaust temperatures could be used instead of our calculated temperatures in the algorithm, if the car has one.
We only need around 600 degrees to burn the soot off, and we only seem to get high exhaust in filter temperatures, after we have done a regeneration on the GPF, with the car stood still.
The second car was a real battle, this car was purchased from a Porsche Dealer and when the GPF fault was identified the customer was blamed for putting in the wrong engine oil.
We requested from the dealer the service history on his car and found on the service carried out before he purchased it, the wrong engine oil was fitted by another Porsche dealer.
The Dealer still insisted that the customer had to pay for the filter
We then requested the pre-sale Val GPF report from the supplying dealer, which took weeks to come, when it came it didn’t look like the usual Val GPF report. It was a spread sheet made up with figures.
We insisted they send us the correct Val GPF report, and when it finally came it showed the car went out with a oil / ash reading of 89%. The level 4 soot loading warning light should have been on the dash.
The new GPF was ordered, and fitted, when the customer finally picked up his car, he noticed that the fuel gauge was nearly empty, he had just put in £80.00 of fuel before he dropped it off.
He asked the service adviser where had all his fuel gone, the reply was, we needed to do some regenerations and lots of road tests after fitting the new filter.
The car went back in after 1300 miles, for the oil / ash level to be checked has agreed, but when the customer asked for the Val GPF report, he met with some resistance, he wouldn’t leave the service department till he got a copy of his report.
To his amazement the oil / ash measured value was at 62.75 %. The exhaust gas upstream temperature was 17.35 degrees C, and the in filter temperature was 199.79 degrees C.
He questioned the oil / ash level %, and was told by the reception chap that this figure can go up and down. He left the service department very unhappy, and disappointed.
Sadly the customer sold his car, because to him it was clear that the car wasn’t fixed.
Our third customers car is in the garage at the moment having its GPF filter replaced, and we are waiting for the GPF Val report, to see if the ash load and exhaust temperature figures are correct.
We have quite a few cars at the moment being monitored with an oil / ash level around 85%, driving perfectly well, no light on. We are using diagnostic testers that can give us the same information as what we see on the Porsche diagnostic Report.
On Wednesday I had a call from one of our members with a GPF issue that’s being looked by a Porsche dealer at the moment. This car has been in the workshop several times for this fault and they have kindly let us see the GPF information on the car. Has a result of my involvement and the dealers help we found a faulty differential pressure sensor which was affecting the upstream exhaust temperature reading.
Before the sensor was replaced the temperature reading was 21.35 degrees C, after the sensor was replaced it was 352.10 degrees C, an increase of 330.75 degrees.
The old sensor was showing a pressure reading of 2.65 hPa, and the new sensors reading was 4.23 hPa. The old sensor didn’t flag an engine warning light, so it was under the radar.
What's funny is we have seen this 2.65 hPa differential pressure sensor reading before, see above.
After looking at an earlier Val GPF report on this car we found the same pressure reading of 2.65 hPa,
Brilliant information, proving a clear link between the differential pressure sensor and the exhaust upstream temperature.
The reason for the call was to tell me, that the dealer told our member that a memo was sent out to all Porsche Dealers to not send out any information, including Val reports, and any printed information etc.
So thankfully over the last 10 months we have gathered enough information to prove that the GPF control of our cars is not correct.
The absence of the particulate filter warning light on the dashboard on all the cars we have investigated is proof that this system is not working correctly on these cars.
You may remember I sent out a reward of £100.00 to anybody that drives one of these 2019 cars, that can send us a photo of the particulate warning light coming on, still waiting.
We are now at a stage in this investigation on these cars, that even when a new filter is fitted it hasn’t fixed the fault, and the first 2 cars mentioned above were sent out not fixed correctly.
The GPF Val reports on both these cars clearly showed ash and temperature reading issues.
We must remember that any diagnostic information on your car is your property and you should be intitled to have a look at it at any time.
We have put in a lot of time and effort in looking into the diagnostic data and what’s happening to these cars, because Porsche and the dealers have said it’s the customer that’s caused the failure of these GPF filters, wrong engine oil, and driving style, and they cant be used on half hour journeys.
We will push on
Dave
10/10 for your tenacity.
Excellent work and even better clear explanation.
All gives me little faith in these modern Porsches and the ability of OPC to understand and clearly engage with the customer about the problem.
Excellent work and even better clear explanation.
All gives me little faith in these modern Porsches and the ability of OPC to understand and clearly engage with the customer about the problem.
Yet again, excellent work Dave, so much detail, these cars need to be recalled and sorted out, it's just not fair, particularly if they know about it and are just burying their heads hoping it will go away!!
Keep on pushing!
Keep on pushing!
Thanks for your feed back, it's appreciated
Dave
Dave
Dave,
The fact that [Porsche UK?] have put out a memo instructing dealers not to send out any information, in printed form especially, would suggest that they’re aware that potentially there’s an issue and want to limit their exposure. I can’t believe that Stuttgart aren’t party to this action either.
Well done, and keep pushing!
Jeff
The fact that [Porsche UK?] have put out a memo instructing dealers not to send out any information, in printed form especially, would suggest that they’re aware that potentially there’s an issue and want to limit their exposure. I can’t believe that Stuttgart aren’t party to this action either.
Well done, and keep pushing!
Jeff
Thanks Jeff
It's time well spent
It's time well spent
Well done Dave. Your tenacity will hopefully bring good results to all those affected.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
