Cayman 718 GPF Failure

[Greenman986S]

This is a little unfair. The matter was raised with Porsche GB but I believe the response was non committal regarding any specific action.

Did the Board post an update to that effect?

 

[Voodoo_Blue]

Did the Board post an update to that effect?

It was clear the matter had been raised with them as posted earlier in this thread and that covered the point made.

 

[Greenman986S]

It was clear the matter had been raised with them as posted earlier in this thread and that covered the point made.

Did it????

 

[Voodoo_Blue]

Did it????

Yep

 

[mikeg]

So the Board just accept what Porsche GB say and move on........ Leadership is not just about accepting the status quo, its about acting pro-actively for the people you lead (who in the case of GPF failures have just been ignored, as has been stated above)

 

[Voodoo_Blue]

So the Board just accept what Porsche GB say and move on........ Leadership is about not just accepting the status quo, its about acting for the people you lead (who in the case of GPF failures have just been ignored as has been stated above)

And what pray would you have them do that hasn't already been done?

Dave, John and others including Board Members, have spent hours if not days and weeks on this trying to help members resolve their issues, chasing dealers and Porsche themselves to recognise the problem and provide a solution. But at the end of the day if they're unwilling to do that we, as a Car Club run by a group of unpaid volunteers, have neither the power or influence to persuade them otherwise despite our affiliation and the obvious frustration of everyone involved.

Of course if you think the action taken to date is inadequate then perhaps you could share your thoughts on what else could be done, I'm sure it would be appreciated.

 

[mikeg]

Please don't group Dave, John, etc in the same category as the Board. I think what has been done by them is way beyond anything you would reasonably expect. Its the lack of visibility and pro-activity from the Board that I was highlighting, which mirrors that of Porsche.

 

[JohnCRS]

In my opinion, Porsche have consistently stonewalled any approach about this issue, whether from the club, their own dealers, or any media channels. They simply refuse to engage. I expect them to continue this policy and I don't see there is much we can do about it. It has worked before on all number of issues - PDK gearboxes, IMS bearings, bore scoring, faulty wheel nuts etc. etc. Ultimately the dust dies down as the issue either resolves itself, gets fixed, or becomes a 'charcteristic' that the market accepts. (e.g. you would not buy a 997 without a borescope test, even though the number of cars affected is actually less than 2%)

The big mistake in this instance was letting dealers try to charge owners £7000+ to fix a (non existent) fault and claim that this was not covered under warranty. If these cars had just been dealt with in the dealer network the issue would not have seen the light of day. The fact that Dave's research and work on this has virtually eliminated that cost risk to owners is the big success of the whole programme.

Regarding what the club, or its Directors can do, again my opinion, it is virtually nothing.
- the club's relationship with Porsche is a marketing one, not technical.
- we have 23000+ members of which say 20 - 25 have been affected by this issue and perhaps 200+ have cars that might be affected. These are the sorts of numbers that could apply to many issues.
- despite the global success of the Cayman / Boxster programme, with the cessation of production and the unavailabilty of a successor Porsche has other priorities to deal with.

I know that this matter has been raised in discussions between the Directors and Porsche but I believe that there was 'nothing to say'. Back to my first point.

We will try to keep this alive as long as possible, to protect members who have these cars. If anyone has any suggestions as to what else the club can do, and where it will get the leverage to do it, then please shout.

 

[Voodoo_Blue]

Thanks for this John. It does indeed highlight that sometimes we don't have the ability to convince Porsche to do the right thing despite the extraordinary and admirable efforts from Dave, you and others to help them see the light. The fact that these efforts have also saved members significant expense should also be applauded.

 

[Motorhead]

I agree completely with all the points you’ve raised John. Facing a very costly emissions software update on a car going out of production, regrettably Porsche have chosen to stonewall the issue and have missed a trick in the process. It would have been far more sensible quietly to just replace the GPFs, especially for cars under the Extended Warranty programme, but have now generated a lot of bad feeling - and concern - amongst owners of these cars. Very poor show Porsche!

Hats off to Dave for his perseverance and to all those - yourself included - who have sought to find a workable solution for those affected.

Jeff

 

[Voodoo_Blue]

Please don't group Dave, John, etc in the same category as the Board. I think what has been done by them is way beyond anything you would reasonable expect. Its the lack of visibility and pro-activity from the Board that I was highlighting, which mirrors that of Porsche.

And of course when it comes to direct communication on this specific matter that has come through John as the relevant RS involved who has liaised with the Board and provided applicable updates accordingly. Having said that the Board could certainly improve their broader communications as has been pointed out elsewhere but that is perhaps a debate to also be had elsewhere.

As John and I have said if you or any other member have any suggestions on what else could be done to help on this subject then perhaps that would be a better use of your time.

 

[Scrounger]

Speak to the motoring press John. I really can’t understand what the issue is with speaking to the likes of Auto Express.

I wont mention it again as my suggestion seems to be falling on deaf ears.

Dan.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without Prejudice

I thought I would update you with the results of some more research I have been doing and some of my conclusions.

Unfortunately, I received a phone call yesterday from a driver of a Cayman 2.0 2022 vehicle with very low mileage. He has an oil ash % reading of 49%, and he is very concerned.

We had a very long conversation regarding all the work and investigations we have carried out over the past few years.

And I suggested he contacts his local OPC and ask them to contact Porsche and register another vehicle with this issue.

This week, we have had some feedback from the Dealers regarding the high oil ash readings returning after the modified GPF filters have been fitted.

They are now saying that at the moment , these readings coming back are ok.

Well, how can they be.

A new filter should have no oil ash percentages recorded in its measured values, so soon after fitment, surely.

What we have at the moment is that when a new modified filter is fitted, our warning light goes out, they can delete the DTC code P242F, but we still have an oil ash percentage remaining that makes no sense at all.

Its taken well over 2 years to finally discover that these filters are not the cause of the problem, and we still have the issue we started with.

High oil ash measured % readings, but no Oil Ash present, and the same differential pressure readings confirming no back pressure present.

I have been looking at Emission issues in general on the internet and found some general information that's quite interesting and covers all vehicle manufacturers.

Vehicle manufacturers must get approval before changing an emissions part on a current vehicle if that change risks the vehicle no longer meeting its type approval standards, which is the process for proving compliance with emissions and safety regulations before sale. Any modification that leads to non-compliance with the original type approval, including changes to emissions control systems, could result in the vehicle being illegal to sell or use on the road.

Regulatory Framework
Type Approval: Vehicles are subject to type approval, a process that certifies they meet specific safety and emission standards.

Post-Type Approval Changes:
Manufacturers must ensure that any changes to a vehicle's emissions-related components do not result in the vehicle failing to meet its original type approval standards.

Manufacturer Responsibility
Maintaining Compliance: The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that any modifications, including component changes, do not cause the vehicle to become non-compliant with emissions standards.

Seeking Approval for Changes:
If a change affects a vehicle's compliance with its emissions type approval, the manufacturer needs to seek approval to ensure continued compliance, especially for new technologies or for changes that could have a significant environmental impact.


The Process
Manufacturer Request:
Manufacturers must submit applications to the relevant national authority, such as the VCA in the UK, to get a new type approval for the modified vehicle or part.

GB Type Approval:
For vehicles to be sold in Great Britain, a GB type approval must be obtained, which validates that the vehicle or its components meet the necessary standards.

Component Approval:
Even for new eco-innovation technologies, a separate application for approval is required in the UK.

Testing & Certification:
Any new component must pass stringent testing to confirm it meets current emission standards, and this is documented in a certificate of conformity.

In Summary
Any alteration to a vehicle's emission control system, whether it's a new part introduced by the manufacturer or a significant change to an existing system, requires proper approval to ensure the vehicle remains legal and compliant with environmental regulations in the UK and other markets.

If we look back at the internal memo that was sent out in March this year, the last paragraph clearly states that if the ash load doesn't reset after a regeneration, the OPF should be replaced.
The new OPF's (982254400AF) have been modified to prevent this issue.
All vehicles with a production date later than December 2019 should already have the modified OPF and are therefore not relevant to this document.If there are any issues outside of this model year range,or any further questions please submit PRMS ticket or email directly.

Well, these modified OPF filters have not fixed the oil ash % issues on our faulty cars, so what do we do NOW.

Are next plan of action, is to contact the relevant Emission people at the DVSA and confirm that they are aware of these changes that have been made to our cars, and ask them for assistance to try and help rectify this ongoing problem on our cars.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated

Kind regards

Dave

 

[Greenman986S]

Yep

Ymmv...

 

[Greenman986S]

And what pray would you have them do that hasn't already been done?

Dave, John and others including Board Members, have spent hours if not days and weeks on this trying to help members resolve their issues, chasing dealers and Porsche themselves to recognise the problem and provide a solution. But at the end of the day if they're unwilling to do that we, as a Car Club run by a group of unpaid volunteers, have neither the power or influence to persuade them otherwise despite our affiliation and the obvious frustration of everyone involved.

Of course if you think the action taken to date is inadequate then perhaps you could share your thoughts on what else could be done, I'm sure it would be appreciated.

It's a few member , not the Board, who are addressing this.

Very poor from the Board...again

 

[Voodoo_Blue]

It's a few member , not the Board, who are addressing this.

Very poor from the Board...again

 

[Voodoo_Blue]

Speak to the motoring press John. I really can’t understand what the issue is with speaking to the likes of Auto Express.

I wont mention it again as my suggestion seems to be falling on deaf ears.

Dan.

This could be a good approach but we also have to be cognisant of the wider implications this might have. Like it or not our relationship with Porsche is complicated and has benefits as well as risks. Being the only official Porsche Club in the country gives us unique access to Porsche GB and AG including historical cars, marketing support, event support, access to their senior management team and of course we have historically received a financial benefit each year as well.

The risk is loosing or significantly damaging this relationship if we go in all guns blazing with the wider press community or god forbid get the lawyers involved. Of course that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep them honest and putting pressure on them where we can with evidence based facts as Dave is doing might just get the result we need.

In the end the Board has to show measured good leadership by taking a wider view of what is in the best interest of the Club and the overall membership which for those directly involved in this unfortunate situation could be disappointing. However that doesn’t mean that things don’t happen behind the scenes and we should support anyone who is trying to do something to help regardless of who they are or their position in the club.

 

[Scrounger]

I have to agree in some respects however the relationship should work both ways. The silence from Porsche GB and AG gives a good indication on how much they value the relationship with PCGB, its members and the wider general public.

Dan

 

[Voodoo_Blue]

I have to agree in some respects however the relationship should work both ways. The silence from Porsche GB and AG gives a good indication on how much they value the relationship with PCGB, its members and the wider general public.

Dan

Yep, I agree.

 

[Peter_Bull]

I have to agree in some respects however the relationship should work both ways. The silence from Porsche GB and AG gives a good indication on how much they value the relationship with PCGB, its members and the wider general public.

Dan

We used to have an excellent superb relationship with Porsche GB at Reading and they would be most helpful with he club in many ways.

There have, of course, been ups and downs as with any commercial relationship and the club had a dreadful relationship in 2011/2012 era. After this we steadily built up the goodwill between us and we really did get on famously, restoring the association we had previously. We valued each other.

I am no longer privvy to the relationship and I hope that it is as healthy as it used to be. Or has something occurred to dampen the relationship? Who knows.

Maybe the board, and in particular the Chairman and Register Director have been to Reading to discuss this quite serious situation and get some resolution for all affected Cayman owners. But unless they come on here or communicate with the membership then were all in the dark.