Cayman 718 GPF Failure

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Further to my last post, I would like to share with you all, this document that was sent out to the Dealers, with information as follows.

I have had this document for a short while, it was left in my post box in a blank envelope with no contact details of the sender.

This document clearly sets out a procedure of what to do if the Particulate filter fault code P242F is logged in the fault memory of your car.

If you look at the last paragraph, it clearly states that all vehicles with a production date later than December 2019, should already have the modified OPF fitted.

All the cars we have seen with this fault, have been pre 2019 December cars.

Its a shame that the Dealers didn't have this information earlier, when trying to explain to their customers how this fault has happened.

Our owners have been told that the wrong engine oil and driving style are the reasons for this GPF failure, and the repair was not covered under the extended warranty, which is another subject on its own.

We are now in a situation that after fitting these modified filters on our cars, we are finding, its not fixed the oil ash % issue, which makes the existence of this information below even worse.

Paul's car is an example of a major miss-diagnosis on this fault, the fact that a simple exhaust back pressure check was not part of the guided fault check on this fault code is absolutely ridiculous.

I will let you all draw you're own conclusions to the existence of this document, and would like to personally thank who ever it was that came to my house and left it in my post box.

Any feedback on this post would be greatly appreciated

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi me again
Without prejudice
Sorry forgot to say, we have now 63K views on this subject

Dave

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Dave
Without Prejudice

Correct me if I am wrong, but the existence of this document indicates that Porsche knew of this problem on MY2019 cars all along.

Also, I am not technical but in the document it states that in some cases the OPF can be recovered and a OPF regeneration should be attempted.......at 100% ash level???? I thought it was soot that was burnt off during the regeneration not ash!! again please correct me if I am wrong.
It also states that the OPF differential pressure sensor should be checked for correct functionality, would/should this not include a back pressure check? something you (Dave) have been saying for some time and yet the dealers still refuse to do it.

This makes me so angry, I started this thread and I was blamed for the problem on my car, my driving style, I was told not to drive the car if the journey was less than 30 minutes.

I had just had enough of Porsche so ended up selling the car, at a loss, because I could not stomach going through the stress of dealing with them when the EML would inevitably re-appear.

The way Porsche have treated their customers that have been affected by this issue is unacceptable.... shame on you!

I have owned four Porsches but I will never buy another one.

Thank you Dave for all the work you have done on this and it looks to me that you have been right all along.

Regards

Mark

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Mark,

Without prejudice

Yes your right on all counts, its a real shame that we have come to this, afterall we have tried to support Porsche with this problem by providing valuable data on all the cars we have dealt with.

We have tried to stop the Dealers and Porsche fitting these expensive filters, and we put in steps last year to see if the oil ash % values come back after the new filters were fitted.

Sadly they did, and have, we have had no contact from either a Dealer or Porsche Reading Technical in the last 2 years of this campaign.

We are in a situation that when these cars are out of the dealer network all sorts of things are happening to them.

GPFs removed, GPF deletes, to many cars traded on, resale values going down, owners selling cars, when they shouldn't need to, is ridiculous and it should not be happening to our cars.

There is nothing wrong with these GPF filters, you only have to look at the tailpipes, passive and active regeneration is working, even without the soot warning light coming on and driver intervention.

Compare the tailpipe colour with let's say a 981, and you will see how good these 718 cars are.

We will not stop till we have an acknowledgement from Porsche that they are going to look into this further, the software would be a good place to start.

Dave

 

[Scrounger]

Dave. Great work and I admire you tenacity.

Could I ask how you think Porsche will finally admit that there is an issue and get this sorted. There is lots of talk of doing this and doing that but nothing that is productive from Porsche. I have said this many times but the only way that anything will get done is if issues like this are raised within the wider community by stating a case with the Motoring Ombudsman or motoring press. I really don't see what the hold back is with doing either or both of these?

Porsche are obviously not interested in looking after customers with this issue so why should those affected or have been affected be concerned about going further? I really don't get it. Sadly views to do not get results especially on this thread as I believe it can only be viewed by members. I spoke to my service advisor the other day and asked if they'd read the article in PP on the GPF issue. They said they don't even see the magazine as it only goes to Dealer Principles.

I commend your hard work, I really do, but you need to take this further to get the best results. Speak to the motoring press, and I don't mean PP. You're best placed to do so with your technical knowledge and I'm sure that it will bring the results everyone is hoping for.

Dan

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Dan

Thanks for your input

Without prejudice

A thousand more views on our forum, after a few recent posts.

We are now at 64K.

Over the next few months we have lots more cars going back in to the Dealers for oil ash % checks to be carried out, after the new modified filters have been fitted.

Not that we need anymore information to confirm these modified filters seem not to have fixed this fault.

But the more data we have, the more of a chance we have in pushing Porsche to get a hold of this problem.

I do believe views count, they are showing clearly there is lots of interest in our campaign.

Hopefully the release of this document acknowledges the responsibility of the manufacturer to commit to a fix.

We now have sufficient information and cars to challenge the GPF control function on these cars, and we are putting together a case on the basis that the oil ash% and soot warning function on the cars we have looked at, doesn't look right.

Fingers crossed.

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Just had a thought, now that we have established that this GPF oil ash fault with a DTC code of P242F was obviously seen in cars way back in 2019 when they were under the manufactures warranty.

And the original GPF filters clearly had to be modified, wouldn't it be great if we could find out what the modification was on the original filter to stop this fault happening again.

So now, we should have a new customer process, to explain to any owners that present a vehicle to a Porsche Service Department, that has the Consult dealer, Driving permitted warning message on the dashboard, and the DTC P242F oil ash load exceeded present on the car.

Its brilliant now for the Dealers, they don't have to give the pathetic excuses that engine oil and driving style has caused this fault.

They don't even have to mention now, that the extended warranty will not cover its replacement.

All the Dealer needs to do now , is contact the Porsche Technical Department, and remind them about their recent document thats just gone out.

Hopefully the Technical Department will not request that a perfectly good GPF is replaced, which will save Porsche alot of time and money.

Because, we have so many cars that have had new modified filters fitted, that are sadly coming back with the same issue.

So all the stress as gone for the owners, waiting around for somebody to ring them, worring about the average 9K bill, its all over.

Its taken us 2 years, and lots of hard work to get to this situation now, we just need an adjustment in the software, job done.

We need to restore the reputation of these cars, and put them back were they belong.

Sorry for going on again, and repeating myself

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Dan,
Without prejudice

Sorry I forget to reply to your previous comment regarding non members not being able to see our threads.

Yes they can

All they need to do is Google. Porsche Cayman GPF issues.

Enclose screen shots below
Click on top of page
Cayman 718 GPF failure I page 5
The Porsche Club emblem comes up, then you an click on to pages from 1 to 31.
It would take a very long time to look at the work we have done, suggest you start on page 5.

Just a question I would like to ask Porsche Technical who seem to be convinced that internal oil consumption into the cylinders is causing the high oil ash % values in the GPF.

Its well written that 90% of GPF ash is caused by engine oil and its additives.

We have had two of our cars engines removed, and stripped down in Porsche workshops looking for internal signs of oil consumption.

Nothing found apparently, engines put back together.

So you would expect that if this was the case on our cars, you would see signs of this oil pollution hitting the Catalytic Convertor core first.

This is a recent photo of a GPF that was removed showing the Catalytic Convertor core, taken off a vehicle recently with 45k miles on the clock, with the DTC P242F present.

And a quote from the Dealer of 8.5K

Looks very clean to me.

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi me again

Without prejudice

Sorry Dan, forgot to mention your comment regarding the Porsche Post magazine article that never got into the customer waiting area at the dealership you recently visited.

They had not seen the two page article that was well written and was asking Porsche for the answers on why this fault was on these cars.

It was in the Dealer Principals office.

Found another photo of a 718 Catalytic Convertor core, with slightly more miles covered, that needed a new GPF fitting.


Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi & Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Have a look at this video, it shows exhaust back pressure being tested on a BMW and differential pressure sensor readings you would expect on a good back pressure reading.

Remember all the differential pressure sensor readings we have seen, on all the cars our Dealers said we needed a new filter were on no higher than around 5.0 hPa.

This is why a back pressure test is crucial in confirming the GPF is blocked and should always be carried out.

Our Dealers are still carrying out a regeneration of the GPF to try and lower the ASH values or try and re set it to zero.

We can see from our GPF data that there are no soot values present at all, which confirms this.

If we go back to the recent technical internal document that was sent out, the last paragraph confirms that a OPF (GPF) regeneration should be attempted, to see if the Ash load is able to be reset.

If this does not reset the oil ash value, then the OPF, (GPF) should be replaced with a modified filter (982254400F).

Any feedback on this post will be greatly appreciated.

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Morning all,
Me again

Without prejudice

We now have 65K views on our GPF campaign, can we get to 70K by the end of the month.

We have lots of things coming up this next week, that will help us to prove again that the replacement of these GPF filters are definitely coming under the category of a major miss diagnosis by our Porsche Dealers and Porsche.

Dave

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Dave
The video (BMW) seems straight forward, but we have never seen any soot figures and a simple back pressure check would identify if the filter was blocked so why oh why do they not do the back pressure check before replacing these very expensive filters!!!
It should be an interesting week coming up, look forward to more details.
Regards
Mark

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Morning Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

I had an interesting day yesterday, one of our owners with a 23 plate Cayman went into his local Porsche Dealer for its first 20k service, and a GPF oil and ash level check.

This specific check was carried out last year at a mileage of around 11K.

We where surprised to find a reading of 11 %, but arranged with the Dealer that it would be checked again when it went in for its service this year.

The car had covered a total of 14K miles, and the oil ash % check was done before the car was serviced.

The technician checked the readings on page 42 of the Val report and found a reading of 37.65 % with a differential pressure sensor reading of 1.2 hPa.

He then shared these readings with the owner, and he made a comment regarding how the car had been driven with regards to it not doing to many short journeys.

This was backed up by sight of page 32 of the Val report showing the number of motor operations between 0 to 3 miles, and 3 to 6 mile journeys.

In total 307 journeys recorded, see the report below

The Service Manager suggested that a regeneration should be done, to try and reset the oil ash level, this was carried out, and the level returned to zero.

The car will be going back in for another check in a 1000 miles.

This got me thinking back to last year when Mark was told that the reason why his GPF had failed was he had done to many short journeys, and they had the data recorded to prove it.

And he was also told by the Service Manager that half hour journeys were not suitable for his car.

I then had a look at the only Val report I have managed to get over the last 2 years, which came from a vehicle that had a new modified filter fitted by Porsche Reading last year.

You may remember it took me over 5 months to get Porsche Reading to pay for this repair.

Looking at the data again on page 32 at the same journeys recorded, we see a different story.

0 to 3 miles 1520, and 3 to 6 miles 1621 total 3141 journeys, see copy of report below.

This cars oil ash level was at 100 %, and Porsche Technical said it needed a new GPF filter fitting because it was blocked.

Our 23 plate cars oil ash level was at 37.65% with much lower short journeys covered.

We know that the oil ash % load is not monitored by the differential pressure sensor, due to the very low differential pressure sensor reading recorded on every car thats needed a new filter.

Its always been are view that the oil ash % readings on these cars are controlled by an algorithm.

Could this data of low mileage recorded journeys carried out over time, be the how the ECU comes up with an oil ash measured value, that then puts on the warning light.

This could explain why after fitting the modified filters, the oil ash % comes back, because the the low milege journey data is still in the cars ECU.

The first photo is the 23 plate cars data, and the 2nd photo is the Porsche Reading cars data

Its just a theory

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls
Without prejudice

Ive just watched a video of a guy called Pete ( Petrol Ped) on YouTube who recently purchased a 991.2 and unfortunately had to return the car.
The car had blue smoke on start up.

I came across a similar issue with one of these cars when I worked at a local Porsche independent workshop, in July 2021.

The car came in with bue smoke on start up, and after doing some research I found a technical bulletin SY 211655 that explained that due to aluminium chips being produced during manufacturing they could affect the function of the check valve in the oil intake pipe, resulting in oil getting into the turbos.

It gave a full list of pipes that needed replacing along with new turbo aluminium catch tanks.

When we checked over the car we not only found excessive oil in the right hand turbo, we also found the boost actuator lever on the turbo was seized solid and could not be freed off, the lefthand turbo lever was also starting to seize.

We ordered new turbos and all the parts listed on the technical bulletin, and when the new turbos arrived we could see that they had been modified.

They had a stainless steel protection cover over the actuator lever, to stop the levers seizing up.

The engine was removed, and all parts were fitted, we also found that the AOS had failed and had been superceded, so this was replaced.

Unfortunately Porsche would not cover this repair because the car was 6 months out of the failure time range on the bulletin.

The cost was around £12,500.

Durring that repair I came across another faulty 991.2, with the same issue, that was within the failure rang, I gave the customer the bulletin number information and Porsche covered 80% of the repairs under warranty.

If Petes car was checked over by a Porsche workshop, why did they not see these issues, and bring it to somebody's attention, afterall they have known all about this issue for quite a while.

And regarding the failed AOS, I have an answer to why it wasn't picked up, and that is they do not use a manometer to check the vacuum readings on the AOS.

They should start.

This is a simple tool that can check so much, AOS vacuum,and backpressure in our GPF cars.

So my view is, the preparation and check over on this car was absolutely crap, and now Pete is clearly shattered by the experience, and now his bad experience on buying one of these cars is spread far and wide.

I know its not a Cayman or Boxster 718, with GPF issues, but it just shows you that you can spend 80K and still be let down by the people you should be able to trust.

Enclose Petes video for you to see

Dave

 

[911hillclimber]

Saw that this morning myself.
These cars are not a premium brand anymore.
Imagine a good video on YouTube about these 718 filters and the costs and attitudes involved...might make some in the right places wince a bit.

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Dave,
Regarding your first post this morning with the 23 plate Cayman and 37.65% Ash Level and a regeneration was carried out and the level returned to 0%, how can this be? I thought you couldn't burn off ash, only soot!! If this is the case and you can return it to 0% that means you would NEVER need to replace the filter because Porsche are saying they can burn off the ash......very unlikely!!! and return it to zero....what is going on?
Regards
Mark

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Mark,

Without prejudice

Yes your absolutely right, if this was the case and you could burn off ASH with a simple regeneration then the company who made these filters for Porsche, would go bust.

It makes you wonder if the company supplying these filters are fully aware that there product is apparently the cause of this fault and has been since 2019.

Pauls car has had two modified GPF filters fitted recently and he still has the oil ash % problem it keeps coming back.

The fact that we cannot get a back pressure check done on these cars in a dealer workshop is absolutely ridiculous.

We offered to pay a Dealer 2 weeks ago to carry out this basic check, they refused and suggested we take the car somewhere else.

Two of our cars have had their engines removed and taken apart looking for any signs of oil consumption that could find its way into the cylinders, and then into the GPF filters.

Quess what, nothing found, so what are we going to do next

How many more parts can we fit to these cars before the penny drops.

We are closely looking at the 2019 992 cars at the moment, that seem to be experiencing the same issues as on our 718 cars.

We will keep you updated

Dave

 

[Greenman986S]

He then shared these readings with the owner, and he made a comment regarding how the car had been driven with regards to it not doing to many short journeys.

This was backed up by sight of page 32 of the Val report showing the number of motor operations between 0 to 3 miles, and 3 to 6 mile journeys.

In total 307 journeys recorded, see the report below

The Service Manager suggested that a regeneration should be done, to try and reset the oil ash level, this was carried out, and the level returned to zero.

The car will be going back in for another check in a 1000 miles.

Looking at the data again on page 32 at the same journeys recorded, we see a different story.

0 to 3 miles 1520, and 3 to 6 miles 1621 total 3141 journeys, see copy of report below.

is that high volume of very short distances a function of the stop start?

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Greenman986S

Without prejudice

To be honest, not sure, we are trying to work out where this oil ash % measured value comes from, it would be great if we could speak to Porsche Reading Technical and work on this together.

We are all waiting for Pauls car to be finally fixed, after all this time spent replacing 2 modified GPF filters, and a new AOS, two differential pressure sensors and a DME.

Not to mention the removal of the engine and a strip down, looking for signs of internal oil consumption.

And after all that time spent, and new parts fitted, we still have this oil ash % reading that makes no sense at all.

The dealer technicians can reset the oil ash reading to zero, then it comes back.

Has Mark said, these readings are not actual ASH, just a measured value thats been created by an algorithm.

Its here one minute and gone the next, and whats really interesting it comes back in a new modified filter thats just been fitted.

Why is it that only a regeneration can change this value to zero, but not every time.

The recent Porsche internal document regarding our GPF issue clearly states that if the first regeneration doesn't reset this value, then a new modified GPF has to be fitted.

WHY, WHATS CAUSING THIS TO HAPPEN

Our 2023 Cayman T, thats just had its GPF filter oil ash % level rechecked again, had increased by 25% over the last 6 months.

Its been reset to zero by carrying out a successful regeneration, and it will be going back to the Dealer for another check soon.

We have proved time and time again, that these new filters are not fixing this fault.

Hopefully we will have some good news on Paul's car soon.

Dave