Cayman 718 GPF Failure

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Tony,

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, we have seen alot higher ash values recorded when these cars come out of the Porsche workshops after these modified filters have been fitted.

What would be great is if Porsche could tell us how they modified these filters way back in 2019, from a technical perspective.

It will be interesting to compare your original ash readings from day one on your spreadsheet, to current ash accumulation going forward.

You have the advantage of having this GPF information on your car, from day one.

We have another owner who has this same info on his car which shows a 75% ash level was present on his first service, at around 11K.
Unfortunately Porsche will not cover its replacement 100% after over a year of trying.

The memo says that these modified filters were fitted on these cars after December 2019, so what should have happened is Porsche should have called back in all the cars up to the December 2019 and replaced the filters.

Bearing in mind this is an emission part.

Most of our faulty cars are in this time frame, some are beyond.

They then could have monitored this ash level going forward and seen very quickly that this modified GPF didn't fix this fault.

These 718 2.0 and 2.5 cars are brilliant cars, nothing out there can compare with the driving experience, and enjoyment these cars provide. It ridiculous that they have been let down by a simple reset function in the software that should have been there from the start.

Look forward to seeing your ash results.

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Morning Tony

Following on from our discussions regarding your ash returning in your software, you posted out on the 24th July that your ash level was at 1.96% after covering only 16 miles at PDI.

The other owner I mentioned who's car was registered in January 2019 found out his ash level was at 74.12 % when his car went in for a wheel repair on the 17th June 2020, his mileage was 8067 miles.

If we compare your ash reading taken at 7369 miles of 23.14% it really shows how quickly this software ash accumulation can build up.

This explains why Porsche and their Dealers were having to deal with this issue in the first year these cars came out.

There must have been lots of these cars with this fault for them to bring out a modified GPF filter with a different part number.

Obviously these GPF filters were fitted under the 3 year manufactures warranty so it wouldn't have been a problem for their customers, just a small inconvenience.

The information on the memo supports all this was true at the time.

Just a thought

Dave

 

[911hillclimber]

Sounds right to me.
This issue was not known then in 2019.2020? Or not publicly known.
Cannot imagine what the mod was to the filter itself, but surely testing the solution would have high-lighted the real issue is the soft ware/sensor, but tweaking the filter the quickest 'fix' at the time?
Not very thorough!

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi 911Hillclimber,

Yes this issue was contained within the dealer network, when we started out on this project we realised that the Dealers didn't see the need to monitor the ash levels on these new filters.

We put in place this check because we knew the ash% wasn't real.

Marks car was the first to be checked and he ended up with more than 50% of ash before he regretfully sold his car. It was the attitude of the dealer that forced him to make the desision to sell his car, blaming him for not driving the car correctly, too many short journeys.

From then on we made sure all these cars with the modified filter fitted had ash% levels checked going forward.

As you are all aware on all the cars we have dealt with, the ash% has come back.

So in reality we are back to square one, right back to 2019, an ash % value thats makes no sense at all, especially if you believe the extremely low differential pressure sensor reading.

And the Dealers under Porsche's instructions are still not doing a simple back pressure check to confirm that these filters are not blocked.

How long is this stupidity going to continue.

Enclose the Porsche memo again so you can see how this admission of this fault is clear for everyone to see.

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Some sad news yesterday, another one of our 718 owners has sold his car because his ash level has reached over 75%.

He's been following our forum, and we have had lots of conversations about the fact that the ash is not real in his car.

But unfortunatly he has not seen any real progress with Porsche sorting out this problem, hes had enough and said goodbye to his 718.

On the 16th April this year I sent a letter out to Porsche Stuttgart asking for help regarding our GPF failures, they responded very quickly and Porsche GB contacted me with a case number.

They said they would speak to the Technical Department and would get back to me, they also said if I had any further information I could contact them.

I did try to contact them, but unfortunatly I have had no contact since.

The reason I wanted to speak to Technical was to give them all the information we had on file, and all the testing results we have gathered over the last 3.5 years, an awful lot of data.

More importantly there was two questions we needed answers on.

1. Why have we never had any reports from any 718 Boxster or Cayman 2.0 and 2.5 regarding the soot regeneration warning message coming up on the dashboard.

If you remember, I offered a reward of £150.00 to anyone that could send me a dashboard photo of this warning message.

That was probably 2.5 years ago now, still no photo.

We did manage to get a photo of this soot regeneration message from a Porsche specialist who contacted us after reading the forum.

This car had just had its GPF cleaned with chemical cleaner, and the eml was on.
The Porsche specialist couldn't clear the light and asked us for help.
This was brilliant for us because we had never seen this soot warning on any of our faulty cars that had the P242F high ash 100% light on.

We asked the technician to send us photos of the dash and any DTC codes, along with the full GPF data, which he did.
We found two DTC codes, P2463 (Particulate filter-soot load high) and 26740 (Particulate filter-Regeneration needed).
We aso found high soot values recorded in the GPF data,

K211 soot load calculated 40.00 %,
K221 soot load measured 52.55 %.

We recommend that the technician carry out several road tests to clear these soot valves that we believe was caused by the cleaning fluid contaminating the GPF.

Eventually the values came down and he was able to clear the codes.

So our question was why do we never see a soot regeneration warning when these cars start to fill up with ash, why is there never any soot recorded in both measured and calculated values especially when the GPF hits 100%.

If the GPF was full of ash to the point it needs replacing where is all the soot going during normal driving, it has to go somewhere, and it certainly would need regenerations surely.

We know that the soot is not escaping out of the tailpipes, because they are always clean, and we never see a differential pressure sensor reading that confirms a blocked filter that needs replacing.

And remember its this sensors function to monitor pressure in the GPF caused by soot accumulation.

The oil ash load % measurement comes from the algorithm

2. Why was a back pressure check not included in the diagnostic checks detailed in the Porsche internal memo, and why are Porsche not allowing this to be done after all this time.

We have presented evidence of our own back pressure checks on a 2019 Boxster and a Cayman recently, and we have proved that no back pressure was present on these cars that had the P242F ash load code present.

Just two questions thats all, its always been our aim to fully understand whats been going on with these cars and bring it to the Dealers and Porsche,s attention by using this forum, and the 718 forum.

Sadly the Dealers will not listen to us, Porsche will not engage with us, but all we are try to do is stop these very expensive modified GPF filters being fitted for nothing.

We have checked for this software ash coming back on all our cars that had modified filters fitted, and the Dealers concerned have this data, surely its passed on to Porsche Technical.

And let's not forget Paul's Boxster 2.5 that had all those parts replaced including a replacement engine and they still couldn't fix this Ash software issue.

Enclose below is the photo of a Regenerate particle filter warning message displayed on the dashboard, which proves it works, when it sees a soot % value high enough to switch it on.

Dave

 

[julesman101]

2020 (Build date March 2020) Cayman 718S (2.5L) PPF Issue, Mileage 31,000, PDK, Sports Chrono

If anyone is curating stats or lists I'd like to add my experience of the PPF issue with the above car.

1. Averaging 5,000 miles a year of mainly short trips.
2. No early warning particulate light was displayed.
3. At the 6 year svc interval (31,000 miles) had car serviced at independent Porsche specialist and 2 days later the engine check control message "Engine control fault, consult dealer, driving permitted" appeared.
4. Borrowed a friends cheap ODBII reader and I could see a code P0242F which my generic reader read as Particulate Filer Ash Restriction. Reset the code, but it would come back pretty quickly, but not instantaneously.
5. Read the manual, noticed I did not get the early warning particulate light but performed the Italian tune over the next 3 or 4 days. Reset the code but it would appear again.
6. Took the car back to the independent specialist who ran the proper diagnostic tools and it reported 100% ASH. He recommended the Italian tune. Tried it again, no luck.
7. Given there was no obvious degradation in car behaviour or performance I ran the car for a month whilst I mulled over what the options were. Then one day, I filled the car with E5 (rather than my usual E10) and the following day the engine check control message went away.
8. That was a month ago, the engine check light has not returned. I'm not sure whether E5/E10 is any factor in the this, just like the check light coming on 2 days after svc. Coincidences? I'm not sure there is any connection between fuel type and this issue? Anyway, at the moment I'm only using E5 fuel.

Thanks for listening... JD

 

[911hillclimber]

Interesting post.
Such a change could be tried readily if a problem car, light on, has been run for some time on E10, but a good question for all those affected to think about and well worth the try to E5 for a month or so.
I have an old high mileage 987.2 and have run the car on E10 for about 4 or 5 years. I know it has no filters etc.

The UK Gov site approves this car (a 2.9) for E10/E5 and I believe the ECU will adapt the car to the fuel type in the system at a given time, thus the car can adapt to different octane in different countries.

Does the 718 turbo's have the same capability?

 

[Scrounger]

Just looked at my filler cap and it states 98 RON. I think my 2.0 said the same. Personally I'd only run top tier fuel such as Momentum or Synergy.

Dan

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi JD,

If you would like to discuss your GPF issue, please give me a ring on 07769 590119
Dave

 

[Motorhead]

Just looked at my filler cap and it states 98 RON. I think my 2.0 said the same. Personally I'd only run top tier fuel such as Momentum or Synergy.

Dan

I think you’ll find that any modern Porsche, naturally aspirated or turbo, will run safely on 95 octane fuel Dan. The knock sensor(s) will detect lower octane fuel quality and safely retard the ignition timing to prevent destructive engine damage, but 98 octane fuel will be required for full rated power.

Jeff

 

[julesman101]

Inside of my filler cap! Drivers manual says 98 is "Recommended fuel" and that 95 is an "alternative fuel".
The drivers manual also says E5 or E10 can be used, and the ONLY caveat listed is that fuels containing ethanol can lead to increased fuel consumption.

I'm not sure i this is relevant to my PPF issues disappearing, but I am confused why the issue has disappeared if the car was reporting 100% ASH which I thought meant there was no recovery possible.



Anyhow... it's been 2 weeks since the issue apparently disappeared, so I'm breathing easier. and my wallet will continue to take the relatively small hit. JD

 

[julesman101]

Hi JD,

If you would like to discuss your GPF issue, please give me a ring on 07769 590119
Dave

Hi Dave, thanks for your kind offer.
At the moment I don't have an issue but if it re-occurs then I will be in contact.
Once again, thank you for your valuable contributions to this community.
JD

 

[Motorhead]

I think that it just indicates how screwed-up the GPF software is JD, as Dave has suggested all along!

Yours definitely is an interesting case, but whether or not it’s an outlier remains to be seen. Let’s hope that it remains a permanent fix for you which others can follow.

Jeff

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Morning Guys & Girls

Sorry we haven't posted for a while

I have been doing some interesting research over the weekend with some of my technical friends regarding the role our differential pressure sensors are playing on our cars.

With the help from my friends, and some time spent , we may have some information that may possibly explain why are cars are filling up with this imaginary Ash, its just a theory but you never know.

To anyone who is considering selling their car because of this GPF fault, please don't, we are working hard in the background to find a fix for this problem.

If you're Warning light comes on with the fault code P242F ash load exceeded, you can still drive the car, and usually we have found that around 300 miles or so, your warning light will go off.

Please contact us on the forum if you need any help and advice.


Dave