Cayman 718 GPF Failure

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

I would like to share with you the Patent information I found on the internet concerning the loading of a particulate filter on Porsche GPF cars.

It takes time to read through this info, your feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi, me again

Forgot to send you this photo of the rare soot regeneration message we have never seen on any of the faulty cars we have dealt with so far.

Dave

 

[911hillclimber]

Yes, "got your money, buyer beware"

People buy on lease, easy.
People buy the dream, easy or a while, but then....
People suffer due to poor engineering and this attitude.

Little wonder the company/brand is in dire straights, not because of this issue of course, but just the attitude throughout the organisation that makes this a real pain for those now lumbered with these cars.
I don't think the people at the top hear about this lot, they pay others to sort it all while they stare at the share prices.

Making as much money as possible is all that matters, and not just at Porsche.

I hope you keep looking for a crack somewhere to get 'into' Porsche and get things sorted.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi 911Hillclimber,

Without prejudice

Thanks for the feedback, if you get a chance to look at the patent document you may appreciate why these cars software makes no sense at all.
We have a differential pressure sensor that doesn't even put on the soot regeneration message.
And remember its the only sensor on the GPF that does anything.
The rest is nonsense
Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Please have a look at this video I've just watched this afternoon, its mid way through the video.

I was doing these roof drain check years ago when I was running a Porsche independent workshop, mainly because the Dealers weren't.

You can get to these without taking the outer panel off, just remove the outer inner wheel arch screws to remove the two funnels either side and modify them.

The flap on the funnels is only there to stop slight road noise coming into the cabin, unfortunately it closes with silt and dirt and makes a plug to block the drains.

Porsche have known about this for years, as roof drains issues started since the 986 Boxster, and 996 911 onwards on every Cabriolet model thats been produced.

This is another example of our manufacturer not reacting to issues that can happen to their customers cars. And what about their Dealers, they will have seen this damage before, yet they cant be bothered to prevent it.

This is another example of a manufacturing defect that relies on preventative inspections to be carried out, or else.

And sadly the customer has no idea, that this fault is easily preventable.

In my opinion the Dealer that didn't check these drains should be responsible for the costs to replace the parts that have failed due to the water damage.

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

We had a bad day yesterday, one of our owners with a 2019 718 Cayman, thats had a new modified filter fitted was told that an oil ash reading of 56% was acceptable and Porsche Technical would not be looking at the car again.

And another owner of a 2019 718 who was quoted 9K by his Porsche Dealer to fix this problem a month ago was told he still had to pay.

This was even after he made them aware of all the work thats been done on our forum, and mentioned the fact that some of these modified filters have been fitted free of charge.

When we started out on this journey we came across some information that said if a vehicle manufacturer had over 25 complaints of an emission control system fault on the same model, they had to report this to the emission people who signed off the certificate of conformity for emissions.

We have had over 36, 718 vehicles were the P242F oil ash load exceeded warning light as come on, mostly 2019 year, but not all.

After losts of research covering vehicle emission control issues, we found this information.

The DVSA changed their Categorisations

Emission control defects were explicitly included in the DVSA's Categorisation of Defects guidance that was revised in 2019. This update added "Emission control system faults" as a specific category and included new notes for issues like the malfunction indicator lamp.(MIL) and defects in the emissions control equipment itself.
Key changes in the 2019 guidance
• Emission control system faults: These are now a specific category for inspection.
• Malfunction indicator lamp (MIL): Defects were added for a lit MIL, and it was clarified that a vehicle could fail for this reason even if it passed the tailpipe test.
• emission control equipment that is absent, modified, or obviously Emissions control equipment: The guidance includes a specific check for defects which can lead to a delayed prohibition.
Action on defects: The guidance details specific actions, such as issuing a delayed prohibition for certain emission control system faults.

The internal memo that was sent out from Porsche to their Dealers in March of this year, clearly states that this emission control problem P242F ( oil ash load exceeded) was on these cars durring that same year 2019.

And a new modified filter to correct this problem would be fitted to vehicles from December 2019.

So, Porsche Technical knew about this issue way back in 2019, they had the same DTC P242F, the same symptoms, and they new all about the modified GPF that was fitted to the these cars to supposedly fix this issue.

Yet Porsche and their Dealers have tried to blame their customers for this fault using the excuse, wrong engine oil fitted, driving style and other parts that could if they became faulty contribute to internal engine oil consumption which would create Ash.

The sad reality is that none of these parts fitted to our cars, that either the customer, or Porsche Extended warranty paid for,
contributed to this oil ash issue.

Because we know after all this time, no credible Ash is in these filters and no credible backpressure as ever been found.

We asked a Dealer about these GPF filters 6 months ago and this was confirmed in writing to us below.

The revised component introduced after December 2019 was a production-line update only, not a retrofit instruction.

• Porsche GB did not instruct dealers to replace earlier units unless a fault was confirmed under warranty.

• Retrofit eligibility therefore required a present fault plus Porsche GB’s authorisation.

They must have been aware of the fact that these cars didn't have the differential pressure sensor and GPF adaptation facility on those cars in 2019, because we are having the same issues now.
And obviously they still can't reset these parts now.

So we are now going to ask the DVSA, if they were aware of this emmision control system fault durring 2019, and are they aware of it now.

They may not be interested but we will see.

Dave

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Dave

Without Prejudice

I think you are right, the DVSA need to be made aware of this issue, it is absolutely disgraceful that Porsche are still asking owners to pay £9500 for a problem that they are fully aware of and have been since introducing GPF's on MY2019 cars.

When you get that call, to be told it's going to cost you £9500 it makes you sick to the stomach and then to pile more misery on you Porsche tell you it's your fault and you have to pay!!

They have replaced the filters with new ones and the new filter records a high reading, which they are now saying is acceptable!! it just highlights yet again the utter incompetence., complete bunch of idiots!!

Regards

Mark

 

[Motorhead]

Hi Dave,

Although thankfully I’m not affected by this issue [I have a 987.2 CS] I’ve been following your journey from the beginning and I have to say that after all this time your posts do make depressing reading, such is the lack of progress in getting Porsche to recognise what is patently obvious a problem of their own making. This from a company that historically is proud of - and has promoted - its engineering excellence!

I don’t know whether or not the DVSA is the appropriate governmental authority regarding emissions compliance, but I agree that you have now amassed sufficient evidence to present a case to the authorities for them to judge and, if appropriate, to take whatever action is necessary against Porsche for them to take this issue seriously, and I can only wish you success in that cause.

Jeff

 

[Wrightrubber]

Well said Jeff.

Unfortunately I was affected by this issue and thankfully with the help of Dave got the dealer to refund my share of the replacement filter. However they informed me if it fills again (the first one wasn't full and neither have any of the ones they keep replacing) I would have to pay the full amount to replace it!! 4000 miles later it was showing 55% full so I sold the car (very reluctantly) I couldn't go through that pantomime again!! Too expensive and too stressful!

Regards

Mark

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Thanks Jeff for your comments,

Without prejudice

A few years ago I asked the DVSA for help relating to a very bad safety issue that I got involved in.

Unfortunately the Dealer recommended Ombudsman couldn't help, so we pushed on with our claim, we investigated the issue and found the same problem was on other manufacturers vehicles.

If it wasn't for the quidance and support from the DVSA we would not have succeeded in persuading the manufacturer to cover the cost.

It did take over 8 months to settle this issue, but it was well worth the time spent, and the information gathered along the way was unbelievable.

So you can see its not the first time Ive been asked look at possible manufacturing defects.

This one is taking far to long to come to a conclusion, 2.5 years, the sad reality is Porsche and their Dealers are treating their customers very badly, at a time when they need these customers.

The Dealers dealing with our cars over the last 2.5 years have agreed with the intructions from the Technical Department at Reading to push this issue on to their customers. In stead of challenging them on the detail of the instructions given.

We even asked if we could go down to Porsche Reading and discuss with the Technical Department the problems we were having on Mark's car. No soot warning light coming on, and the oil ash % coming back on his new modified filter.

To our astonishment they refused, the reason was they weren't customer facing, and they sent him back to his dealer. Mark's car was the first car to have a modified filter fitted, paid for by Porsche, the ash came back, the Service Manager at the time told him if the filter blocks up again he would be paying for it.

Because of this he sold his car unfortunately.

The Dealers also had to tell their customers that the extended Porsche warranty cover would not cover the GPF filter, as it was a service part, like an air filter. Yet the GPF was never listed in the exclusion section of the policy.

That's been changed now, its written in the exclusion section, to stop any confusion going forward.

Whats even more confusing is the GPF doesn't have its own part number its part of the Catalytic Convertor, which was covered I believe.

And what was even more ridiculous is there was nothing wrong with these GPF,s in the first place.

They have refused on every one of our requests for a back pressure to check to be carried out, and it wasn't even mentioned on their internal memo check list either.

WHY NOT

The damage this is causing the brand is totally unnecessary, never mind the cost of reputation and confidence that Porsche Technical are also loosing along the way.

WHATS THE REAL REASON WHY THESE CARS ARE NOT BEING FIXED.

The feedback from the Dealers at the moment is they can't fix these cars.

You wouldn't expect to hear this from Porsche, would you, they made these cars.

Dave, and the 36 owners we have come to know over these last 2.5 years.

 

[Wrightrubber]

Dave

Without Prejudice

Can you remind me, did you at some stage say you had helped a 2019MY 911 (991) owner with their GPF where the dealership had said they needed to pay and you got one (of the two) filters replaced?

Regards

Mark

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Mark

Without prejudice

Yes we did deal with a 991 2019 in February of this year the bank 1 GPF filter was condemned by his Porsche Dealer, 100% oil ash load exceeded.

We managed to get hold of the GPF report which confirmed the figures recorded didn't make any sense at all.
It took a while but they eventually agreed to replace the Bank 1 filter.

Enclose the GPF report showing the figures, would you please cast your eye on the K241 and K242 Particulate Filter Bank 1 & 2 installation test diagnosis values.

We have had a few 4.0 Cayman Boxster GPF reports sent to us recently and we have found that on the K241 & K242 readings we have seen figures recorded we haven't seen before.

The photo enclosed shows you 64.3% and 56.9%, we also have a reading from a brand new 4.0 GTS that had 56.5% and 54.9%

Obviously we have tried to find out from a few Dealers what these figures mean but they wouldn't talk to us.

So we did a bit of research, which could be right, or wrong but its all we could find.

If you look at the 2 phone photos below, it mentions a sequence of installation checks and percentages of downloading.

If you look back at the 991 data they are at 0.00%.

We believe that when the download gets to 100% it changes to 0.00%, which we believe is ok.

What we think is funny, is that the figures we have seen on these cars, is very similar to the oil ash % readings we are getting back on our 2.0 and 2.5 cars, it could be just a coincidence.

We will continue to look at these 4.0 readings going forward, what we really need is an owner with a 3.0 or 4.0 car that shows these values to ask their Porsche Dealer what do they mean, and do they need a re set, bearing in mind they are diagnostic particulate filter values.
Dave
Any feedback on this post would be appreciated.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

I have been following a chap on YouTube called Barrie Crampton for quite sometime and hes brilliant, he's calling for EV's to have battery condition checks to protect customers when they purchase a second hand EV.

It got me thinking that our GPF cars should have a GPF condition check, especially now that Porsche seem to be unwilling to help our owners when the fault code P242F comes up on their dashboards.

We have gone through a period of time were Porsche changed their desision to charge their own customers to fit a GPF because the GPF software readings made no sense at all.

Then we discovered in March the existence of an internal memo that confirmed they had this very same problem in 2019, and they introduced a new modified GPF to fix it.

We have proved that these modified GPFs do not fix this software ash % issue, because 13 of our cars that had the new modified filters fitted, our now showing oil ash % figures that are totally unacceptable.

And they are now saying that a reading of 56% is acceptable, because they are unable to reset this oil ash % figure to zero.

Now remember all our cars that had new filters fitted were checked within 1000 to 1500 miles, in some cases as low as 500 miles, sometimes the cars never got out of the garage.

We have been looking at quite a few 4.0 GTS cars recently and when we look at their oil ash % readings we have found that a 2020 car typically shows readings well below 6.0 % on each bank.

Now that is acceptable.

So how can a reading of 56% on a 718 2.0 or 2.5 vehicle thats just had a new modified filter fitted, be acceptable.

Due to Porsche's position on this now, I think we need to ask for a GPF condition report on these cars when they go in for service or repairs, and certainly if the vehicle is coming out of its manufacturing warranty.

Because they have been very reluctant to cover these filters in the past, and the extended warranty will certainly not cover it, you need some protection.

And yet after 2.5 years of protesting that the GPF filters are not the cause of this fault, and its a software fault, they and their Dealers are still insisting these GPF filters are the cause.

So until Porsche bring out a recall to finally sort this fault out, I think we need to be more proactive, and we can be, because we have the evidence to prove that these cars are not right.

Regards

Dave

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Dave

Yes I think you are right and owners should ask for a GPF condition report when they go in for service, I also think prospective buyers should ask for a condition report before purchasing and get the dealers to clarify where they stand if the filter is showing a high reading.

Regards

Mark

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Mark
Without prejudice

Thanks for your support, it brings me back 2.5 years ago when we set off on this journey, and it saddens me that both you and Nigel sold your cars because Porsche and their dealers treated you so badly.

If you remember Nigels Dealer actually fabricated a GPF report because they had put in the wrong engine oil on a previous service, they put zero ash % readings on his report to cover up their mistake on the oil type.

This was their excuse for not supporting him, what they didn't bank on was we had your GPF report to compare with and the sense to check his service history.

We have come on a long way since then mate, but we have had
far to many casualties along the way.

Hopefully this nightmare will be ending soon, fingers crossed.

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Let's not forget how good these cars are.

 

[Paul-718gts]

Hi Dave,
I total agree that owners should be asking for the GPF report as part of the service, at the end of the day it’s your car and if the brand was doing their job properly they would be checking the VAL report for potential issues which you would like to think emissions was part off.
As we well know now during their supposedly extensive presale check on used cars the GPF data was never part of this or if it was maybe it was ignored.
We also know there have been several instances where potential buyers have put deposits down on a used car and then asked for the VAL report(driven by them reading this forum) and after lots of excuses it’s never been provided so the potential buyer has reversed out of the deal…
Why would any car dealer allow this to happen unless they knew there was a problem.
If I go back to my experience when I rejected my 2019 2.5 GTS after 15 months of total frustration (a new engine/ 3 GPFs/CPU/several pressure sensors and a turbo) I moved into a 4.0 GTS and insisted that before I signed on the line I was provided the GPF report.
I have said it before and I will say it again, regardless of brand when we look to purchase a used diesel or petrol car we must insist on asking for the particular filter report … and not just excepting its okay as it’s got a full dealer service history and warranty cover.

 

[Voodoo_Blue]

Having now tried to read and understand the patent information posted above I'll admit my understanding of the technology is rudimentary at best.

However of the bits I did think I understood it seems that the invention takes 2 readings of the back pressure in the exhaust system and performs a calculation based on these readings to determine how much the filter is blocked. If that result is above a certain point then it throws a warning message to the dashboard.

If that is correct then the questions outlined above still stand and my thoughts are that the relevant authorities need to be involved in order to try and get them answered.

Sorry I couldn't be any more helpful.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Voodoo_Blue

Without prejudice

Thanks for your feedback its appreciated

Yes that was my conclusion, the differential pressure sensor reading is filtered through measured blocks then a second created sensor reading is introduced, then passed through other measured blocks then using further calculations it should in theory put on the soot warning light at a predetermined soot loading level, which should be programed into the algorithm.

Soot management is very important to minimise ash build up.

To many failed regenerations would normally cause higher ash values.
So correct GPF temperatures are crucial to the regeneration process.

To turn soot to ash, you need exhaust temperatures around 600 degrees.
Our cars don't have exhaust temperature sensors fitted to the GPF filter, so again the algorithm uses another calculations of temperature.

Our 718 4.0 cars have a separate exhaust temperature sensor on each GPF filter.

I sent this written algorithm information to a friend of mine called Tom, he was has baffled has I was.

It doesn't mention anything about ash values, in respect of the possibility of re setting the differential pressure sensor readings, and the oil ash % reset after a new filter is fitted.

Fundamental requirements you would expect to have.

We have a soot warning system on our cars, that when the soot values reach around 45 % it puts the (Regenerate particle filter see Drivers Manual) message on the dashboard.

We have had only one car that put this light and message on, this was only because the cars GPF had been contaminated in an attempt to clean it.

The amazing thing was the differential pressure sensor reading was only .75 hPa.

So we can say with confidence that filtering the original differential pressure reading and all the other nonsense it goes through is clearly not working on our faulty cars.

And to back this up we have had no reports of the soot load high DTC P2463 being present on any of our faulty cars.

And if these filters where blocked with ASH, were is the soot going, and why are the sensor readings so ridiculously low on every car thats showing the 100% oil ash high reading.

All comes back to this algorithm.

Photos below
Soot warning message
Soot Fault code
GPF data showing soot loading
Algorithm working out, free hand

We will be speaking to the relevant authorities about this issue, will keep you updated.



Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Morning Guy & Girls

Without prejudice

A friend of mine who lives in Milwaukie sent me this information, hes been following our posts on GPF issues with great interest.

Some specific Porsche models in 2019 were involved in smaller or broader recalls that included emissions-related components, and specific issues like potential emissions control component failures were addressed via recall campaigns for certain models.

Porsche Cayenne Diesel (2014-2017 models): A major recallwas issued for a "defeat device" in the 3.0L Vó diesel engines, which was found to alter emissions performance to meet regulations. The involves a software update and potentially hardware modifications.
• Porsche Macan S (2017-2019 models): A recall was issued for a software issue that could cause the emissions control system to not operate correctly. The fix involves a software update.
Porsche Panamera (2017-2019 models): A recall was issued for a software issue that could cause the emissions control system to not operate correctly. The ix involves a software update.
• Porsche 911 (2017-2019 models): A recall was issued for a software issue that could cause the emissions control system to not operate correctly. The fix involves a software update.
‣ Porsche Cayenne (2019 models): A recall was issued for a software issue that could cause the emissions control system to not operate correctly. The fix involves a software update.

This 2020 information he sent me is really interesting, we are having issues at the moment with our cars that are not on the list above, but are having an emission system control problem regarding Ash build up, and the soot regeneration warning light not coming on.

We are being told our GPF filters are full of ash and need replacing. When a new modified filter is fitted, the ash comes back very quickly, not 100% which would put the light on, but high enough to cause some concern.

Our Dealers are now telling us that this Ash reading is now acceptable, we are actively challenging this statement because Porsche Technical will not even speak to us, even at Club level.

Its really interesting that emission control problems all seem to have started around 2019. The year that GPF filters were introduced to all petrol engines, you could except that this new technology would possibly bring teething issues along the way, so support from Porsche would be crucial. They have been aware of this issue since 2019, reference the memo to their Dealers in March of this year.

But at the moment we have still to many vehicles driving round with the EML light on, with the DTC P242F oil ash load exceeded. Dealers insisting that a new modified filter is required 9K. Owners contemplating having the original GPF filter removed and software deleted because it would be cost effective.

This is totally unacceptable and has to stop.

We just want answers to our questions.

Dave