Cayman 718 GPF Failure

[Motorhead]

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

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

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From information we have received both the GPF filters and the exhaust temperature sensors have been superseded since production.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

 

[Paul-718gts]

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

 

[Strider]

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.

 

[Scrounger]

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.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

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

 

[Motorhead]

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

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

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

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

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

 

[Paul-718gts]

Hi Porsche Club Board,

Just an idea on how the club could help support this course and its loyal members going forward.
There are several large meets the club are supporting this year..
If we provided you a diagnostic’s reader the club could help collect data from current owners with GPF’s fitted to obtain data on ash levels and mileage ?

This may give us a boarder picture to leverage a deeper investigation by the brand and if required a recall..

Just a thought..

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Paul,

Without Prejudice

I have just been on the phone with an owner of a 718 Boxster that's just had a new GPF filter replaced yesterday at a Porsche Dealer.

The owner was at the garage 15 minutes ago picking up the car, we asked them for sight of the GPF report to show a zero reading on the new filter fitted.

Of course we were disappointed to see an oil ash value of 62.7%.

Unfortunately it's not the dealers fault, they are carrying out repair instructions from Porsche Reading Technical, and for some reason they think it's acceptable not to have 0.00% reading on a new GPF filter.

How many more of these so called modified filters are the dealers going to fit, before somebody at Porsche Reading Technical does something about it.

They should be embarrassed by the level of incompetence shown towards this fault on these cars, it's got to stop.

The excuses given against our owners of the wrong oil used, and the driving style, and now the modified exhaust don't cut it any more.

I think the best way forward, is now that we know the modified GPF filters are definitely not the cause of the high oil ash % values.

We should ask all our 718 Cayman and Boxster post 2019 owners to get their oil ash % levels checked when their cars go into the dealers for service and repair.

It's quite simple to do, connect the PWIS tester to the vehicle and check the data on page 42.
The oil ash measured value is K231

This really should be a service requirement bearing in mind the importance of having a fully functioning Emission system on these cars.

And what this test would do, is hopefully confirm our GPF problem is not on the newer cars.

If this proves to be the case, and our post 2019 cars are showing very little oil ash % values per mileage covered, then we could work out what's changed on these cars.

We have currently 44K views on this subject, we just need our Porsche 718 owners to help us get to the truth of what is really happening.

If this situation regarding these 2019 718 cars continues to carry on, the effect on re sale value will not be good.

These cars are brilliant in performance and handling and lots and lots more other things, and there is nothing out there to equal them.

Its not acceptable for Porsche to cast us adrift with these cars.

We need action now, a holding letter could be sent out to all our owners to confirm this emission control issue will be given the highest priority.

The software is the issue, let's fix it, only the manufacturer can do this, as any adjustment to software or hardware on these cars as to be authorised by the Emission Regulation people.

This would boost confidence in the Porsche owner community and restore faith and integrity with these cars, and rebuild reputation.

Fingers crossed

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Morning Guys & Girls

Without Prejudice

Well another busy weekend, we had two more owners contact us with GPF issues, one was sold from a sports car specialist, and the other was a post 2019 car.

It's becoming more apparent that the dealers are struggling to reset the oil ash % reading after fitting the new modified GPF filters.

We have seen previously that the only way they can re set this level is to carry out a static regeneration cycle.

This is ridiculous, bearing in mind the filter is brand new.

On diesel cars, after you clean, or replace a DPF, it's just a matter of pressing a few buttons on a diagnostic tester and the jobs done.

On these cars, for some reason this is not the case, we know that they cannot adapt a new differential pressure sensor when it's fitted.

So historical sensor information is still in the ECU, and it may not recognise the new sensor information going forward.

We also know that after these new filters are replaced, the dealers are carrying out very long road tests, 100 miles was the last road test on one of our cars.

Unfortunately that didn't zero the oil ash value, and the car is still in the workshop.

If we look back to when this all began, the Porsche dealers refused to cover the cost of replacing the GPF due to it being a filter, in other words a service item.

So we had to except it was a service item, and look to Porsche to help with the cost.

Thankfully after proving that the GPF data made no technical sense, they covered this cost.

So going forward we should treat the GPF with an Oil Ash Service Check, and have a look when the car goes in for a repair or service.

Afterall whenever a Porsche vehicle that has a GPF filter fitted, goes into the workshop and requires the use of the PWIS diagnostic tool, it's quite easy to look at page 42, GPF data.

This is so important to us, bearing in mind we never see the soot regeneration warning light working on these cars, and we have no early warning when the oil ash level is getting close to 100%.

We know that the 100% oil ash value is nonsense, and when checked for exhaust back pressure there isn't any present.

And to back this up, we have an owner with a supposedly blocked filter, that's just covered over 10,000 miles, with the warning light coming on and off 3 times.
With no running issues at all, and has just be serviced at Porsche.

We are putting together all the data on these cars collected over the last 2 years, to possibly contact the Emission Regulation people to see if they would have any interest in this matter.

When are faulty cars are sold out of the dealer network it's very difficult to get any work authorised.

When really these cars need to be returned to the Porsche dealers for them to sort out.

Remember the recent information that was sent to the dealers last month, that admits they were aware of this issue for some time.

We just need Porsche to recognise and speak out to our owners that they have a problem because this issue is not going away, we have now 46,000 views on this subject.


Regards
Dave

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi all,

Without Prejudice

Dave in your last post you mentioned about checking these cars whilst they are in for service, this is a brilliant idea, the technicians will be in the PWIS system so like you say it's very easy to check page 42 GPF data, the owners can be informed of the situation before the dreaded engine control fault light comes on and you have to go through the horrendous battle with Porsche and the OPC to get it resolved. Dave with all the information you have provided and the evidence you have seen it is quite clear Porsche have known about this issue from when these GPFs were first fitted in 2019 and like you have eluded to I am sure that because this is part of an emissions control device that is defective, I suspect through the software, that the Emission Regulator would be very interested to know what Porsche have to say on the matter.
It is absolutely sickening for owners of these cars, who have in the main purchased these vehicles from OPCs with two years extended warranties, full Porsche service history to be faced with this situation. I offered to drive to Porsche Technical Centre in Reading(7 hour round trip) to speak to the Technical Department only to be told the Technical people are not customer facing so they wouldn't see me, I was told it was my style of driving that was causing the issue and not to drive the car if my journey was under 30 mins, well that was never explained to me when they took my £50K and sent me on my way, I had previously had an early 718 Cayman without a GPF, why when I purchased the 2019 model didn't they explain or make me aware the car had a GPF fitted?
Why can't Porsche see that treating customers like this is harming the brand, my experience is the couldn't care less!! I have recently sold my 718, I didn't want to, but didn't want to go through this painful situation again. I have owned four Caymans and this latest issue has definitely made me think twice about owning another Porsche.
Keep up the good work Dave and thank you again for all your help, I and a lot of other owners couldn't have done it without your input.
Regards
Mark

 

[Scrounger]

IIRC you don’t need PIWIS to gain the ash load figures. If you have an ICarsoft indent remember it being in the engine section. I do have one so I’ll have a look when I get chance.

Dan.

 

[Paul-718gts]

Hi all,

Without Prejudice

Dave in your last post you mentioned about checking these cars whilst they are in for service, this is a brilliant idea, the technicians will be in the PWIS system so like you say it's very easy to check page 42 GPF data, the owners can be informed of the situation before the dreaded engine control fault light comes on and you have to go through the horrendous battle with Porsche and the OPC to get it resolved. Dave with all the information you have provided and the evidence you have seen it is quite clear Porsche have known about this issue from when these GPFs were first fitted in 2019 and like you have eluded to I am sure that because this is part of an emissions control device that is defective, I suspect through the software, that the Emission Regulator would be very interested to know what Porsche have to say on the matter.
It is absolutely sickening for owners of these cars, who have in the main purchased these vehicles from OPCs with two years extended warranties, full Porsche service history to be faced with this situation. I offered to drive to Porsche Technical Centre in Reading(7 hour round trip) to speak to the Technical Department only to be told the Technical people are not customer facing so they wouldn't see me, I was told it was my style of driving that was causing the issue and not to drive the car if my journey was under 30 mins, well that was never explained to me when they took my £50K and sent me on my way, I had previously had an early 718 Cayman without a GPF, why when I purchased the 2019 model didn't they explain or make me aware the car had a GPF fitted?
Why can't Porsche see that treating customers like this is harming the brand, my experience is the couldn't care less!! I have recently sold my 718, I didn't want to, but didn't want to go through this painful situation again. I have owned four Caymans and this latest issue has definitely made me think twice about owning another Porsche.
Keep up the good work Dave and thank you again for all your help, I and a lot of other owners couldn't have done it without your input.
Regards
Mark

Totally agree with all your comments Mark.

Latest on my car is that another week has gone by and the Brand are still no further forward even with all the testing the dealership has completed.

The dealership have even gone on a road test with 2 technicians and a computer plugged in to see what’s happening during a live run.
All I will say at this stage is that the reported readings are all over the place and it just reinforces the whole “software emissions theory”.
Dealership is yet again awaiting response from Reading Technical, so I am now trying to establish if Reading Technical is in communication with Germany.. Given the length of time my car has been at a dealership and the severity of the whole issue if it is an emissions fault you would like to think so.

From recent conversations with Dave it does now appear that there are more 2021 owners approaching him with potential GPF faults so I would 100% agree that when you go for a service,insist that you are provided the ash and soot readings.. the more evidence we can obtain from our owners the greater the chance we have of the Brand recognising this issue and finally revolving it..

On a final note to the Club ? Any news from your side ? it all appears to have gone radio silent yet again.
And it would appear to me that the article we contributed too and your influence with the Brand is non existent ? Happy to be told otherwise.

And it would now also appear that we are clearly at a stage where this looks like it’s going to get escalated to the emissions authorities given the lack of response and resolution from the Brand on this whole issue.

Which is a real shame given the efforts by alot of people to fix this issue out of the public eye..

 

[ianthow]

Would it be worth getting an independent report to submit to the Motor Ombudsman?

Independent technical reports

If you have a dispute about your vehicle then you may be asked to get an Independent Technical Report to support your case.

www.themotorombudsman.org

Their web page lists recognised independents.

 

[D18PHN]

A positive interaction with OPC on this issue.

I have a 911 Carrera 4 GTS (991.2 - MY2019) which recently had a warning light appear on the dash. Ok to drive, contact your dealer.

OPC inspected & informed me that my filters were full & that they would both need to be replaced at a cost of circa £10k, this was not deemed a warranty issue so the cost would be mine.

OPC informed me that this could arise due to driver style:

Short trips, not allowing the exhaust system to heat up sufficiently​

Low revs​

Wrong fuel​

With 12,000 miles between the MOTs they carried out & an impressive collection of tyres bought from them, they considered that perhaps this was not the case!

I expressed my dissatisfaction at the situation & they agreed to raise a customer complaint with Porsche UK. I then called Porsche UK & suggested that this was probably a them issue & not a driver use issue. I also politely pointed out the well timed article in Porsche Post on the issue.

Porsche UK agreed to have the OPC carry out a regen & 100 mile drive, with the results sent to Porsche Germany, who would decide on the outcome.

Post regen the ash levels were ZERO, post the 100 mile drive the ash levels were ZERO.

Porsche Germany have therefore stated that there is nothing wrong with the vehicle & no further work needs to be carried out.

I paid a contribution to the regen, which was considerably less than the initial £10k proposed !

The important of challenge & a helpful OPC has been a winner in this instance.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Thats a brilliant outcome, well done for pushing the point, but where has all the ASH gone.

Without prejudice

One minute it's there, the next minute it's gone.

Performing a regeneration cannot remove a 100% Ash level, the regeneration emision function is designed to remove soot only.

And I presume the soot regeneration warning message has never been seen on the dashboard prior to the ash warning message coming up.

I suspect a back pressure check was not carried out once again, to establish a blocked exhaust or not.

This is the 2nd car we have seen with the same conditions that we are finding with our Boxster and Caymam 718 cars.

Our last 2019 991.2 car with 12K, had a new GPF filter fitted, we questioned the GPF data provided.

Because of the lack of back pressure found from the differential pressure sensor reading, Porsche agreed to cover the cost 100%, but wouldn't cover the other GPF, that was lower at 58%.

It would be really interesting to see the GPF report, pre regeneration, we could compare it with the one we have on file.

This car will be going back to Porsche to check that no oil ash is present on the new filter after a 1000 miles, and to see if the other sides % has increased.

It looks like the 718 GPF info sent to the dealers in March to regenerate the filter before fitting a new modified filter may apply to this model.

Only time will tell, if we have a similar issue with these cars, let's hope not.

Regards
Dave

 

[Paul-718gts]

A positive interaction with OPC on this issue.

I have a 911 Carrera 4 GTS (991.2 - MY2019) which recently had a warning light appear on the dash. Ok to drive, contact your dealer.

OPC inspected & informed me that my filters were full & that they would both need to be replaced at a cost of circa £10k, this was not deemed a warranty issue so the cost would be mine.

OPC informed me that this could arise due to driver style:

Short trips, not allowing the exhaust system to heat up sufficiently​

Low revs​

Wrong fuel​

With 12,000 miles between the MOTs they carried out & an impressive collection of tyres bought from them, they considered that perhaps this was not the case!

I expressed my dissatisfaction at the situation & they agreed to raise a customer complaint with Porsche UK. I then called Porsche UK & suggested that this was probably a them issue & not a driver use issue. I also politely pointed out the well timed article in Porsche Post on the issue.

Porsche UK agreed to have the OPC carry out a regen & 100 mile drive, with the results sent to Porsche Germany, who would decide on the outcome.

Post regen the ash levels were ZERO, post the 100 mile drive the ash levels were ZERO.

Porsche Germany have therefore stated that there is nothing wrong with the vehicle & no further work needs to be carried out.

I paid a contribution to the regen, which was considerably less than the initial £10k proposed !

The important of challenge & a helpful OPC has been a winner in this instance.

Maybe based on this information, regardless of model any owner of a Porsche post 2019 with GPFs fitted should request and receive their ash and soot readings at their next service..

Just a thought ??

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Morning Paul,

Without prejudice

It's a good thought, we just need our GPF car owners to engage with us and help us determine how well these cars are managing to control their particulate emission systems.

All the data we are collecting will help going forward, we will not be all driving electric vehicles in the future if the Petrol and Diesel cars are more efficient.

What we are seeing is that ASH buildup is not a problem on these cars, and these cars are doing an EXCELLENT job in coping with passive soot regeneration.

All our cars have a tailpipe colour light grey with a brownie tint, which is the ASH coating.

The only way a GPF can fail is generally down to soot leakage, caused by a cracked or leaking substrate within the exhaust housing.

If you compare this tailpipe colour with a 981, for instance, you will see have far Porsche have come with these cars.

Our back pressure checks have confirmed this, and the differential pressure sensor readings are also showing this is not the case, as seen on all our GPF page 42 reports.

We just need Porsche Technical to concentrate on the SOFTWARE DATA on these cars and change it.

I heard the other day that petrol and diesel hybrid vehicles do not have an emission test on the Mot test.

This is ridiculous, when we talk about emissions, and our push for cleaner air.

Dave