Menu toggle

Cayman 718 GPF Failure

Hi Dave,

That 991.2 report reads like a work of fiction! Apart from the Bank1 vs Bank2 measured oil ash load, the figures for both banks are identical [why is Bank1 twice that of Bank2?], and how is it that the calculated exhaust gas temperature of 346 degC in the filter is more than 5 times that of the calculated temperature upstream of the filter, the latter value being [an unbelievable] 61 degC? Being calculated values , obviously there’s something amiss with the software being used to compute these [fictional] values.

Do the dealers actually look at these figures? They’re having a laugh aren’t they?😀

Keep up the good work. It’ll pay-off … eventually!

Jeff
 
Hi Jeff,

Without Prejudice

Thanks for coming back to us on this subject.

The reason why the upstream exhaust temperatures are lower is the engine wasn't running at the time of the diagnostic test.

When the engine is running the algorithm kicks in, taking information from other engine sensors.

This is the same on our 718 cars.

We will at some point be checking out cars post 2019 to see if the oil ash % software readings show similar range settings to our cars.

Bearing in mind these cars have exhaust temperature sensors fitted, not like our
2.0, 2.5 718 vehicles.

From information we have received both the GPF filters and the exhaust temperature sensors have been superseded since production.

Sounds familiar.

Regards
David
 
As Dave would say,

Without Prejudice…..

Well, as a very quick up date my car has been with the OPC for 14 weeks next Tuesday, 3rd GPF fitted after under 14,000 miles car from new.This time a new GPF and not a warranty refurb was fitted and it showed over 50% full after 20 mile road test drive.
As far as I am aware the car has had more mechanical tests completed over the last 14 weeks than a space shuttle prior to launching and the Brand still can’t find the root cause.
Yet again I have mentioned the software as a possible root cause but for whatever reason the brand appear to be steering around this potential root cause.. I guess the ultimate question is why.. ?

I can only assume any potential software updates needed on anything related to emissions needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities. I am sure we can all remember the recent VW diesel gate saga where it all went wrong.

From reading a lot of posts on the 718 forum a lot of owners appeared to have overcome this issue by replacing the CAT with a aftermarket part and tuning the car by adjusting the software to overcome any challenges… and in some instances gain more power..

I guess that’s fine if your car isn’t under warranty as long as you still pass the MOT emissions test.

As far as I am aware the club hasn’t been able to get a response from the Brand and there have been no follow ups to last months PP article as promised..

I guess everyone is hoping this issue is going to go away.. well it’s not as I believe we are up to 44,000 views.

Dave keep up the good work I am sure we are close to opening Pandora’s box
 
I'm retired from my position with the Club now, still writing for Porsche Post but everything else is passed on to others. I'll email Steve Johnson to make sure he is up to speed with the plan and copy the senior in-house people. I hope they pick it up and I'll keep encouraging them, but I no longer have a position that allows me to thump the table with Porsche GB or to tell the Club what web and social media content to post.
 
If it is a software issue the simplest route would be to do a software update as soon as possible and compensate those that have been affected and are out of pocket due to the GPF issue.

Nipping it in the bud and all that.

Dan.
 
Morning Richard,

Hope you are well, and enjoying retirement,

Did you manage to get any feed back from the CEO and the FD at Porsche Reading concerning your article regarding the GPF issues on the 718 cars in the Porsche Post magazine March edition, you said they requested personal copies of the magazine.

It would be brilliant to get their comments, on what is now becoming a very serious emission function fault with our 718 cars.

Without Prejudice

Pauls post is very disappointing, although we where quite certain that another GPF fitted to his car would not fix his oil ash issue.

Following my post the other day regarding the recent information sent out to the the Porsche dealer network on the 3rd March this year, concerning our Particulate filter fault.

I would like to ask its author Oliver Hayward some questions, he said in the document, any further questions please email me directly, hopefully he will give me permission to contact him.

The last paragraph on his document reads as follows.

In some cases the OPF can be recovered therefore a OPF regeneration should be attempted to see if the OPF ash load is able to be reset.

If this has already been attempted or the ash load level doesn't reset when the OPF regeneration is attempted, then the OPF should be replaced and the vehicle retested.

The new OPFs (982 254 400 AF) have been modified to prevent this issue.

All vehicles with a production date later than December 2019 should already have a modified OPF and are not relevant to this document.

Well, all our vehicles were built before December 2019, and if they had shown the OPF DTC P242F they would certainly have been replaced under the manufactures warranty.

Time goes by, then all of a sudden a software ticking clock sets a warning light, oil ash load to high, and we are off.

The dealers tell our owners, its the the wrong oil used, your driving style creates a high oil ash content, and do not look for support from your Porsche Extended Warranty, because even though the OPF is not listed as an excluded part, we have decided it is excluded, because we class it as a service item.

So hard luck.

Two years on and lots of time spent proving to Porsche Technical that the OPF is not the issue to this fault, we have finally arrived at a positive conclusion, SOFTWARE.

All this upset, as been due to a known fault going back to the first year of production, and we had no idea.

Because of this ridiculous situation, many of our cars have been sold, had their OPF filters removed, tunned out, and the residual value on these cars as declined, to the point that the Porsche dealers are not stocking these 2019 cars on their forecourts in numbers.

Its unacceptable that these vehicles cannot be fixed by Manufacture who built them, Pauls car as been in 14 weeks, and still not fixed.

Engines removed and stripped down, on two of our cars, looking for internal oil contamination, to support a 100% oil ash reading that's never been correct in any of our 718s, and now two OPF filters replaced, and we still have high oil ash readings.

And what's even more ridiculous no exhaust back pressure checks have been carried out by any of our Porsche Dealer Workshops.

Its also unacceptable that any body should have been charged for the replacement of an OPF filter that was known to be a possible problem all those years ago, and to make matters worse clearly does not rectify the problem, and is still ongoing.

And I believe that anybody that has suffered financially because of this manufacturing defect, that they should be compensated.

Any feedback would be appreciated as always

Kind Regards

Dave
 
The current situation for Paul and others affected is beyond farcical Dave, compounded by Porsche’s stonewalling on the issue when it’s obvious that something appears to be wrong with the software, requiring investigation at the very least.

Dan’s suggestion of a software update leads me to ask where the GPF monitoring software resides? If it’s in the DME itself that leads me to suppose that this could require a complete DME replacement, otherwise you’d assume that Stuttgart would have instructed the dealers to conduct a software update as a matter of course? Do you have any insight on the subject?

In Paul’s case it’s clear that replacing the GPF for the third time - and presumably with the latest-spec component - still hasn’t solved the problem, so it could be that replacing the DME will be the next step?🤔

Jeff
 
Hi Jeff

Thanks for coming back to us, yes the software is in the DME.

I compared the DME part numbers from a 2019 car with a 2023 car, they seem to use the same part number.

We posted out recently that we have successfully changed the oil ash level % parameters on a Cayman 2019 718.

This re set the % to zero, and the light went out.

This car was diagnosed last year with an 100% oil ash level, with the usual dealer quote of 8K, the car had covered 54K.

We checked the exhaust back pressure at their local garage, it read 0.028 PSI, no back pressure present.

The car is being monitored to see if the soot regeneration light and message comes on.

The guys who did this software update think it will.

Watch this space

Regards

Dave
 
Hi Guys&Girls

It's me again

Without Prejudice

Sorry just gone back on our forum to page 1, May the 29th 2023.

Mark kicked off with the news that his GPF had failed and he was in a fight with his dealer and Porsche to try and get some help.

I joined his fight on the 4th October 2023 and after a long battle, we managed to get sight of his GPF report page 42.
And discovered measurements that didnt make any sence at all. Porsche and the dealer finally picked up the invoice.

Two days later a chap posted out on the forum this text.

I have a 2019 Cayman 718 with 17000miles on the clock. I have the PADM light on the dash and have been told by my OPC that I need two drive train mounts at a cost of £2900. I have also gone down the route of trying to get a goodwill gesture from Porsche but to no avail. I am now hoping that my GPF unit doesn’t fail as this could total £8000, which Porsche would not contribute to on a 4 year old low mileage car. I love the car but would seriously consider not buying another because of the poor after sales help from Porsche.

Funny that the drive train mounts on these cars have also been another manufacturing problem, and who would have guessed we would be still pushing Porsche to fix these cars after all this time.

Sadly Mark has since sold his car, after the new GPF was fitted it went back in for an oil ash % check, it read 36%, after 1200 miles.

Mark purchased a diagnostic tester to check his own level, his last recorded measurement was 55%.

If you remember Mark asked the Porsche Reading Technical Centre if he could drive down to them, to ask them why his soot light wasn't working, and why his ash level had increased so quickly.

They said they we not customer facing and he would have to go back to his local dealer.

Remember his local dealer said his driving style was the issue, and if his new GPF blocks up, it wouldn't be covered under warranty again.

Enough said

Dave
 

Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members

Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the Club, who shall have no liability in respect of them or the accuracy of the content. The Club assumes no responsibility for any effects arising from errors or omissions.

Porsche Club Great Britain gives no warranties, guarantees or assurances and makes no representations or recommendations regarding any goods or services advertised on this site. It is the responsibility of visitors to satisfy themselves that goods and/or services supplied by any advertiser are bona fide and in no instance can the Porsche Club Great Britain be held responsible.

When responding to advertisements please ensure that you satisfy yourself of any applicable call charges on numbers not prefixed by usual "landline" STD Codes. Information can be obtained from the operator or the white pages. Before giving out ANY information regarding cars, or any other items for sale, please satisfy yourself that any potential purchaser is bona fide.

Directors of the Board of Porsche Club GB, Club Office Staff, Register Secretaries and Regional Organisers are often requested by Club members to provide information on matters connected with their cars and other matters referred to in the Club Rules. Such information, advice and assistance provided by such persons is given in good faith and is based on the personal experience and knowledge of the individual concerned.

Neither Porsche Club GB, nor any of the aforementioned, shall be under any liability in respect of any such information, advice or assistance given to members. Members are advised to consult qualified specialists for information, advice and assistance on matters connected with their cars at all times.

Back
Top