Cayman 718 GPF Failure

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Thanks Paul for your post, it really confirms what we have been saying for the last 2 years, the Gpf filter was never the problem, and this now finally shows no matter what parts you fit to these cars to get the oil ash % to behave, your wasting your time.

There has been a major miss diagnosis on this fault from the start, and the recent internal memo that came out on March detailing diagnostic checks to be carried out if the P242F oil ash load to high was present, definitely confirmed this.

Also the memo confirms that a new GPF had been modified to prevent this issue, and all vehicles with a production date later than December 2019 should already have the modified GPF fitted.

The one diagnostic check that would have stopped this situation from continuing, a GPF back pressure check was excluded on the memo, WHY.

The good news now is that the dealers can not blame the drivers of these cars, for putting in the wrong engine oil, or not driving them correctly, and the huge cost of replacing the GPF isn't necessary.

We have cars going back in for further checks now, after the new GPF filters have been fitted, and hopefully the dealers will be putting pressure on Porsche Technical to get this issue finally sorted.

Afterall its really embarrassing for them, now that the cats out of the bag.

The only thing left now is the software, which we have said many times is easy to adjust to correct this fault once and for all.

We now have 74K views on this subject, this amount of attention on a vehicle fault on our Porsche Club Forum is breaking records, never ever been seen before.

Fingers crossed, we are nearly there.

Sorry John, I hadn't seen your post, before I started mine, but might as well send it out.

Dave

 

[Paul-718gts]

Hi John,

Completely agree on both your root cause speculation and the method in which the Brand is managing this issue..

As you say it’s a numbers games and far cheaper to deal with the few than resolve the majority.

 

[dpoynton]

I have got punch drunk trying to get up to speed on this disturbing matter.

Could someone please post a resume of where things stand, eg, which 718 cars definitely DO NOT suffer from the GPF issue (all 18 reg and prior plus certain 68 dates?) and therefore which years we need to be careful about.
What have Porsche GB Reading publicly stated on the matter and what support will they give.
Any other salient points.

Thanks
David

 

[ianthow]

I have got punch drunk trying to get up to speed on this disturbing matter.

Could someone please post a resume of where things stand, eg, which 718 cars definitely DO NOT suffer from the GPF issue (all 18 reg and prior plus certain 68 dates?) and therefore which years we need to be careful about.
What have Porsche GB Reading publicly stated on the matter and what support will they give.
Any other salient points.

Thanks
David

Date of registration will not help due to variable time lapse between manufacture and registration. The model year (MY) is probably more relevant. This is coded in the 10th digit of the VIN. For MY 2019 cars, the code letter is K. Production for MY 2019 will have begun in the second half of 2018 so some 68 plate cars could be MY 2019. Assuming GPFs were first fitted for MY 2019, any car with an MY code earlier than K should be OK.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Well, what a day yesterday on our forum, just shows the interest on our forum when we put on some news.

Speaking of news, just had some this morning, we have a vehicle that's just had its original GPF filter reset to zero by a Dealer.

We asked for the oil ash % level to be rechecked after completing 300 miles, this was checked, and we now have 89%.

When you read the last paragraph of the internal Porsche memo regarding the OPF (GPF) procedure, it says in some cases the OPF can be recovered if a regeneration is carried out.

This regeneration is how they try to re set the OPF to zero. If this fails, the instruction is to replace the OPF and the vehicle retested.

It seems clear now that if a GPF % retest is carried out after a short mileage is covered, the software re calculates a new %.

This calculation is way off scale and doesn't represent the actual oil ash loading of the GPF, so it can not be believed.

On all of our cars that have had new modified filters fitted, all of them now have an oil ash % readings that make no sense at all.

What we also find is that there are no soot values recorded either, which we have seen on almost all of our faulty cars, which again is not right.

And the fact that we have no record of any driver of our 718 vehicle's reporting a ( Regenerate particle filter see Drivers Manual ) message on their dashboards, must confirm that something is not quite right with our software.

You would expect someone out there to have seen this message.

When this message appears on the dashboard, it leaves 2 trouble codes, P2463 Particulate filter soot load high, and 26740 Particulate filter Regeneration needed.

I am sure if Porsche Technical looked back at all the GPF replacement information they have, they would see this issue.

I wonder what was happening in 2019 when the Dealers were seeing our P242F oil ash load code coming on, and the need for Porsche to bring out a modified filter to prevent this from happening. And its odd that this issue should really show itself 6 years on.

Again, this was confirmed in the last paragraph on the internal memo.

We have a condition on these cars at the moment, that one minute we have a high oil ash% value that puts a light on, then the next minute its gone after a soot regeneration is carried out, and then the oil ash % comes back.

Thankfully, we all know now that these figures are not correct, and you can not regenerate ASH if it's real.

So all the hard work has now been carried out, eliminating the hardware, we just need to look at our software, bearing in mind that most of the figures you see on the GPF report are measured or calculated by an algorithm.

Dave

 

[JohnCRS]

To summarise, as requested by DPoynton above. This issue started with the first cars to be fitted with the GPF, model year 2019 cars. Most of the cases dealt with are from that period. We have seen later cars affected, and also different Porsche models, but so far these are exceptions and I do believe that these exceptions do not create a rule. We suspect there may be more cases coming through but do not have the numbers to support it (yet!)

So: Pre-2019, non GPF cars are fine
MY 2019, = higher risk
MY 2020, = lower risk
MY2021 and beyond = low risk (i.e. there is a higher chance of something else going wrong, rather than the GPF)

These cars consistently score well in reliability tests, so it is important to keep this in context. For every car that has had a GPF issue, there are tens, or even hundreds, of cars running fine. The reason this has become such a big issue is because some members faced a very large (£7-£9k) charge for something that was not covered under warranty. If Porsche had been able to fix it without charge, we would hardly know of it.

If I were in the market for a Cayman or Boxster 718 2.0 or 2.5 ltr car I would be wary of MY2019 model year. For all years I would ask for a VAL report and expect lower than, say, 60% ash load. I would then ask for the GPF to be included in the warranty. I would only buy through an OPC or Porsche specialist who is aware of the potential problem. On this basis, if I found the car I wanted, even a 2019 one, I would go ahead

It seems that 4.0 ltr cars do not suffer from this issue. (I know of one case that could be a GPF problem, but I know of two cases where engines have been replaced for other reasons.) I would be happy buying a 4.0 ltr.

I think the margins involved in the measurement of the ash load are incredibly small. Sensors and all otherparts of the drive train are manufactured to tolerances. It is possible that in some cases all the tolerances and measurements are such that they hit the predetermined level and trigger the error code. In most cases this does not happen but, very exceptionally, you get a situation like Paul's which becomes a lost cause.

Dave has done a fantastic amount of work on this issue and is happy to continue to assist members who are having GPF problems. Through his efforts we believe we know what we are dealing with and know how to help members avoid the big bills OPC's still try to charge. Thank yoou Dave. We will continue with this and, if Porsche technical would like to reach out to us, we really would like to know what 718 owners are facing.

 

[Paul-718gts]

Hi John,

I would agree with you but it doesn’t explain that after replacing everything in my car except the brake pads, it still was showing a 33% ash fill with a new reconditioned engine from Porsche Germany and brand new turbo and new exhaust.

Software algorithms and controls around this measuring process need to be looked into, but we all know that it’s highly unlikely this will get pursued.I have discussed with Porsche and mentioned to Dave that it could be that the calculation is just out by a factor of x 10 but that doesn’t explain the random number jumps we are seeing when new parts are fitted.

As Dave has mentioned previously unlike other manufactures Porsche doesn’t have a soft rest function and just relies on a forced regen.

As a note for owners if the OPC completes a forced regen on your car as part of there process they are supposed to change your oil and filter due to the extremity of the heat cycle put through your engine.

Outside of the Porsche warranty world, companies are offering their services to owners and are tuning the issue out.. this evidence is clear all over the 718 forum.

 

[AlistairF]

Just a thought, but has anyone looked at the DME in terms of software version (problematic and later versions) Usually if there is a software change the Version will have been changed. Alternatively the file size may be different…assuming someone smart can get into it…

 

[Motorhead]

According to Paul’s post #631 his dealer threw just about everything at the problem … including a replacement DME Alistair!

Jeff

 

[AlistairF]

I saw that, but what version software was loaded on the DME ? If the dealer loads the software via a link to the factory (as bmw do) by chassis no without checking the Version it might be the same again.

It seems the conclusion on the thread is its a software issue. If later cars are ok and the Gpf is the same part no…then Porsche must have revised the software surely.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Sorry its been awhile, not posting, we have quite a few cars going back into Dealers for oil ash % checks after the modified filters have been fitted.

Will update you has they come in, but the reality is the oil ash comes back very quickly on these new modified filters that have been fitted.

The Dealers are still insisting that the oil ash % is real and the GPF is blocked, they replace them and it comes back, not at 100%, but usual around 50% on average.

The light is out, so thats good thing.

Its quite incredible that the Ash can disappear after a soot regeneration is carried out, and then it comes back after a few hundred miles.

Where does it go, and how does it come back in to the new filter after such a short time.

Hopefully one day Porsche Technical will explain to us why this is happening.

Thankfully I haven't had any calls recently from owners that have been told by their Dealer they need a new GPF.

Maybe the information we are posting is getting back to Porsche Technical.

We are still researching the software, will update you all when we get some software evidence.

Our views are at now at a staggering 78%, so thankyou all for you views, lets keep pushing on.

Regards

Dave

 

[JohnCRS]

Just speculation Dave - I wonder if the OPC's are doing a software update when fitting new GPF's? I guess not, if they still cannot sort cars like Paul's, but it does seem strange that the levels settle at around 50%. Is this the level we would find on a normal / healthy car (i.e. one that is running without problems or CEL showing)?

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi John

Without prejudice

Its always been a shame that Porsche Technical have not engaged with the club on this topic.

I have a data base on all the cars we have dealt with over the last 2 years, detailing the GPF data, mileage covered, and the full history of the repairs carried out.

Its not good reading, it clearly shows after all the work that was approved by Porsche Technical and Warranty on all our faulty cars, has proved to be a major miss diagnosis BLUNDER.

We have known this ever since we had sight of the first GPF report on Mark's car, it clearly showed no back pressure recorded on a GPF filter supposedly blocked according to Porsche.

From the start it was a battle to overturn Porsche Technical and the Warranty Departments desision, that the owners had to pay.

But thankfully we managed to get these GPF reports, and it all started to make some sense.

Paul's car is the final straw, it confirmed that whoever was making the decisions to replace all those parts, was either desperate, or was trying to avoid the SOFTWARE possibility.

Well, the only thing it can be is the software, so Porsche Technical need to sort this out, all the hard work has been done regarding replacement of engine and emission related parts.

We now can monitor these cars using inexpensive diagnostic testers, that you can purchase on the Internet, check out previous post.

None of our cars had high mileages, so you wouldn't expect to see high ASH values on the report, it might help if the algorithm was changed to show an ASH value in the calculated section K230, which always reads 0.00%, for some reason ?.

And the most over looked reading has always been the K251 differential pressure sensor reading, which has never shown an high enough reading of back pressure to confirm a blocked GPF.

It would also be great to see the soot regeneration message working on our cars, has detailed in the drivers manual.

I recently looked at another GPF report on a Cayman 718 GT4, the information provided, especially exhaust temperatures that are created from actual exhaust temperature sensors fitted to the exhaust, shows a more detailed and comprehensive report.

Why are our cars so different, could this be the issue, surley software receiving actual data thats correct, must be better, and it seems to be, has we are not seeing GPF issues on these cars.

I think going forward, has Paul said, a few posts back, we need to introduce a GPF condition check, to be carried out on these cars.

These can be done by the Dealers, Porsche Independents or anyone selling GPF cars.

It should be part of the Service Schedule,
and the Pre sales inspections, bearing in mind its importance regarding emmisions, and the issues we have been having.

Even EV vehicles now, are having Battery condition checks carried out in order to protect consumers when they are considering buying a second hand EV.

Sorry John, I've gone on a bit

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without Prejudice

Just checked our views, we currently have 80K views on our 718 GPF campaign, this is brilliant.

On September the 6th last year we only had 14K.

I know views dont get us any prizes, but what it does show is the interest shown regarding our campaign, lets push on to 100 views +.

We still have all our cars out there with new modified filters fitted, that are still faulty, and the Dealers hopefully will be pushing Porsche Technical for some answers.

Will update you has soon as we have some information.

Thanks again to all the people who are clicking on to forum, it will hopefully help in the long run.

Enclose a copy of the forum view page

Regards
Dave

 

[911hillclimber]

What happens when repaired cars have a DPF failure again and return to the OPC with the same issue asking for a resolution to get back on the road?

I presume these removed DPF units are sent back to the manufacturer vis Porsche for Porsche to claim against them.

The manufacturer will resist this if they find NFF and ask for Porsche to explain the situation.

This must now be happening?

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi 911hillclimber,

Without Prejudice

We are still waiting for responses from Porsche Dealers regarding all the vehicles that have gone back for the oil ash % check after a new modified filter as been fitted, and unfortunately the oil ash % figures are already at an unexpectable level, will update you all when we get some news.

Have a look again at all the work that was carried out on Pauls car, page 32, July 23rd, detailed on this forum, it doesn't make good reading, but does confirm Porsches attempts to try and solve this issue.

Regarding the return of the GPF filters, you would definitely expect that the manufacture would not be happy if these units were sent back to them as faulty, especially Pauls recent GPFs.

I would like to ask Porsche Reading, what happens when a 718 is sold out of the Porsche network, and the DTC code P242F is present.

I have had quite a few phone calls from new owners, with these cars, where the light has come on shortly after purchase.

We need to introduce a standard GPF condition check to be carried out, showing oil ash levels, whenever these cars are sold. This would protect new owners of these cars, and the data from these checks could be sent to Porsche Reading for analysis.

With all our Porsche Dealer sold vehicles with his fault, the journey to get Porsche to admit liability hasn't been easy, but we got there eventually, but dealing with independent garages is not has straight forward.

In fact its been terrible, the usual reply from the selling dealer, is get your vehicle diagnosed, speak to your warranty company, and no the GPF is not covered.

Your on your own.

Also another disturbing trend, is that we are seeing many reports where these cars are being fitted with different exhausts and the GPF is programmed out, to remove this fault from the car. This is because the cost to replace a GPF filter, THATS not faulty, has been the only current option available from the Dealers, hopefully this should stop now.

Its illegal to remove a GPF, unless its for track use only, if you look at the tail pipes on a 718, you will not see any soot at all, check out a 981, and see the difference.

It seems very simple to me that after 2 years of dealing with Porsche Dealers and Porsche we have a situation that Dealer sold cars, have had worked carried out on these cars covered by the manufacturer.

In August 2024 we had conformation in writing from the Porsche Customer Relations Hub in Reading, that the GPF filter fault on one of our cars was identified by the Technical and Warranty Teams to a Manufacturing Defect.

Sadly the owner of this car has recently sold it due the the oil ash level coming back.

In March this year we had further conformation in writing by way of an internal memo to the Dealers explaining what to do if the DTC P242F, (oil ash load to high) presents itself.

This memo clearly explains what the Service departments need to do regarding the possible causes of engine oil getting in to the cylinders, and causing the formation of Ash particles.

On the 2 vehicles that have had the engines removed, stripped down to try and find signs of engine oil getting into places it shouldn't, nothing was found, confirming the engines were not the issue.

Various detailed checks had to be carried out, then if no oil was found to be present, a GPF regeneration had then to be carried out.

This was to see if the GPF ash load would reset, if it didn't re set, the GPF should be replaced and re tested.

Again no mention of a simple back pressure check to be carried out.

We have proven beyond any doubt on our cars, that have had new filters fitted, the filter is not the issue.

The memo went on to say, a new GPF (982254400AF) had been modified to prevent this issue. All vehicles with a production date later than December 2019 should already have the modified GPF fitted, and are not relevant to the document. If there are any issues outside of this model year range, please contact Porsche.

It seems to me with all this information we have above, that Porsche Dealers need to support our independent garages, and new owners, if a vehicle has this GPF issue, there should be a procedure to follow which should be implemented to at least record these faulty cars, and give reassurance to new purchasing owners, that they will not be cast adrift.

At that moment if you own a 718 4.0 GTS, or a GT4, you are in a very good place, we need to fix our cars and put them back in a good place.

There is nothing on the road that equals the driving experience of the 718 2.0 and 2.5 cars, we need these entry level cars, not every one likes 911s.

Any feedback would be appreciated, we are on 81K views at the moment, thankyou all for your interest, and support.

Dave

 

[911hillclimber]

Thank you for the post Dave, it will help many readers who are technically interested and/or an owner or indeed a potential owner.

Seems the actual filter is ok, it is clear it functions and new/modified ones are just as 'bad' as the originals then the fault is elsewhere, and can only be the program that ascertains the condition of the filter at a given time. This calculation is wrong in the car's system so there needs to be a change and that revision installed in the car's electronics somewhere.
I hope my summary is right.
Overall, I see this as a head-in-the-sand position from Porsche, starting with the Factory and sort of cascading down to the dealers who seem to be in a straight jacket.
When I worked, (in design/manufacturing) we would contest every return where there was a question mark raised by our QA dept, we would not simply pay unless the part had obviously failed. This forced the company returning the parts to justify the return.
Surely Porsche must now be getting considerable resistance from the filter manufacturer, and so considering what is the true issue by now?

Really good factual professional thread, and I am sure all will be corrected, but in what time scale.
These cars are going to get 'black-listed' due to this fault getting out into the public domain. (ie IMS bearings etc)

A very expensive problem to own.

I'm not helping much here, but feel very disappointed that Porsche are acting this way, but I'm assuming they have a fix!

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi 911Hillclimber

Without prejudice

Thanks for your feedback, your summary is spot on, Porsche are the only ones that officially can change the emision software on these vehicles.

I have seen software thats been changed, on our cars, and you can see its different, when its changed the oil ash reading goes from a normal 0.00 % reading to a 0 (zero).

This shows the GPF oil ash function has been taken out of the system.

This can not be allowed to happen on an emission controlled vehicle, and if Porsche do eventually change the software, they could refuse to do so on a car thats had its software changed in this way.

What should happen is the parameters that calculate this oil ash percentage need to be adjusted, not removed completely.

From what I have read on the Internet regarding vehicle emissions, if any vehicle manufacturer that has more than 25 vehicles, same model, that have emission control problems reported, they have to report it to the emission people that approved the emissions system before the vehicles were allowed to be sold.

This is why only the Manufacturer can change the emission control functions on their cars, if they need to be changed.

Dave

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Dave

Why do you think Porsche are reluctant to update the software? This could be done when the cars go in for service, the GPF reading could be checked and a software update implemented, this would put owners minds at ease instead of them going through the worry of a 9K bill and ultimately them getting rid of their cars!

Keep up the good work!

Regards

Mark

 

[Greenman986S]

Hi Dave

Why do you think Porsche are reluctant to update the software?

did someone mention dieselgate...