Cayman 718 GPF Failure
- Thread starter Wrightrubber
- Start date
Hi AW_GTS
Would you like to explain other reasons, and a bit fabricated, Iam sure all our members who have been affected by this fault would like to know.
Dave
Would you like to explain other reasons, and a bit fabricated, Iam sure all our members who have been affected by this fault would like to know.
Dave
Wrightrubber
PCGB Member
Greenman986S
PCGB Member
Wrightrubber
PCGB Member
Well said, it is an absolute insult!
Yep, to be ignored Imho.
Hi Guys & Girls
Some good news for a change, we have had a another GPF replaced F.O.C by a Porsche Dealer down south today which brings our total to 18 cars.
Which is good news, but we are still fighting to get more of our faulty 718 cars authorised. For some reason our Dealers are still saying that Porsche will not allow them to carry out a simple back pressure check as part of their diagnosis of this fault.
This is absolutely ridiculous that this simple check was omitted from the internal memo instructing the Dealer technicians on what to do when the ash code P242F presented itself.
What it did say was to check the GPF differential pressure sensor for correct functionality ensuring the pipes to the differential pressure sensor are not blocked or restricted.
So on every one of these cars that have had this fault, their technicians have seen a differential pressure reading that did not support a blocked filter condition.
Common sense would suggest a further diagnostic test to check the very low differential pressure sensor reading that are always present when these filters show this ash load at 100%.
Afterall a faulty sensor could easily indicate a blocked filter, when in fact it wasn't.
Omitting the back pressure check wasn't left out by accident, it was done on purpose.
We have pushed on about this back-pressure check for the last 3.5 years and its still being ignored.
By confirming no back pressure is present takes away the need to replace a very expensive exhaust component, why are they not looking at this.
Thankfully we are looking at this, and all the information we have collated over the last 3.5 years proves beyond any doubt that these modified GPF filters are not the source of this problem and have never been in all the cars that we have dealt with.
I know some people may say why are you pushing to get these filters replaced knowing it will not fix these cars.
Thats simple, its their diagnosis, not ours but when these filters are changed and authorised by Porsche it confirms that they have accepted responsibility for this fault on these vehicles. And they will have to accept further responsibility going forward when these ash levels come back, which at the moment they are doing.
We push on
Dave
Some good news for a change, we have had a another GPF replaced F.O.C by a Porsche Dealer down south today which brings our total to 18 cars.
Which is good news, but we are still fighting to get more of our faulty 718 cars authorised. For some reason our Dealers are still saying that Porsche will not allow them to carry out a simple back pressure check as part of their diagnosis of this fault.
This is absolutely ridiculous that this simple check was omitted from the internal memo instructing the Dealer technicians on what to do when the ash code P242F presented itself.
What it did say was to check the GPF differential pressure sensor for correct functionality ensuring the pipes to the differential pressure sensor are not blocked or restricted.
So on every one of these cars that have had this fault, their technicians have seen a differential pressure reading that did not support a blocked filter condition.
Common sense would suggest a further diagnostic test to check the very low differential pressure sensor reading that are always present when these filters show this ash load at 100%.
Afterall a faulty sensor could easily indicate a blocked filter, when in fact it wasn't.
Omitting the back pressure check wasn't left out by accident, it was done on purpose.
We have pushed on about this back-pressure check for the last 3.5 years and its still being ignored.
By confirming no back pressure is present takes away the need to replace a very expensive exhaust component, why are they not looking at this.
Thankfully we are looking at this, and all the information we have collated over the last 3.5 years proves beyond any doubt that these modified GPF filters are not the source of this problem and have never been in all the cars that we have dealt with.
I know some people may say why are you pushing to get these filters replaced knowing it will not fix these cars.
Thats simple, its their diagnosis, not ours but when these filters are changed and authorised by Porsche it confirms that they have accepted responsibility for this fault on these vehicles. And they will have to accept further responsibility going forward when these ash levels come back, which at the moment they are doing.
We push on
Dave
18, what a good number!
When the OPC changes the filter, paid for or free I presume the light goes out, and for a long time, even over a year?
I presume the repair carries a warrantee, thus OPC carry that obligation until the end of the cover?
As proven, the light comes on at some random time due to sensor action not part failure, so possibly the OPC then has a repeated obligation to replace?
Any plans to find a new 'door' to open Fortress Porsche to get some reliable action?
When the OPC changes the filter, paid for or free I presume the light goes out, and for a long time, even over a year?
I presume the repair carries a warrantee, thus OPC carry that obligation until the end of the cover?
As proven, the light comes on at some random time due to sensor action not part failure, so possibly the OPC then has a repeated obligation to replace?
Any plans to find a new 'door' to open Fortress Porsche to get some reliable action?
Morning 911Hillclimber,
From all the information we have received from our owners who have had the new modified filters replaced, they carry out a soot regeneration on the new filter and spend a lot of time road testing these cars to get a zero ash reading which doesn't stay at zero for long.
Typically our owners are reporting that lots of fuel is used and lots of miles have been covered after the replacement of these filters.
We have documented cases of two cars that had ash levels over 50% after the filters were replaced, which was found when the customers asked to see the GPF data on their cars before they took collection.
Both our owners challenged this ash returning, and they were both told by the dealers that Porsche Technical said it was acceptable providing it didn't continue to increase beyond 50 %.
To back this up, we challenged a Porsche Dealer last year on one of our cars that had covered only 1600 miles after a new filter was fitted and it had 47% of ash recorded.
We asked the dealer to contact Porsche and ask them what would be the expected ash reading immediately after a new modified GPF was fitted.
They confirmed in writing that it could be anywhere between 0% and 50%, they said this below.
The value should stay steady and not be constantly increasing. If the value continues to increase, then this would indicate that the cause of the GPF high ash load has not been attended to and further investigation is required.
We have this statement documented on file.
This is because our cars do not have the adaptation function in the firmware to carry out a simple ash reset on a brand new GPF filter, and more worring no adaptation function regarding the replacement of the differential pressure sensor.
Regarding the warranty on these new filters, we have struggled to get a definitive answer on this subject.
We have seen a GPF filter replaced using the Porsche extended warranty because the AOS supposedly took out the GPF, this should definitely have the two year parts warranty.
Buts its all nonsense, these filters are not faulty, you only have to look at the tailpipes, no soot, if the substrate fails in any way, soot will be found in the tailpipes.
If we go back to the memo, the first sentence says.
The customer complains of the EML light on the dash and in some cases reduced power output from the vehicle.
We have had no reports of reduced power on any of our cars with this fault, no running issues at all, only one DTC P242F ash load to high.
When you look at the GPF data in the cars memory it always records zero soot values, on a filter thats showing an ash load value of 100%.
It then goes on to explain how ash can accumulate in the particulate filter.
Its obvious that this ash loading value is not real, because where as all the soot gone on a filter thats blocked up with ash.
The differential pressure sensor is not seeing any pressure build up in these filters, its the software algorithm thats giving a false reading.
And its continuing to give false readings after the new modified GPF filter is replaced.
Regarding future plans, yes we are constantly looking at other avenues but we cannot disclose these at this time.
Dave
From all the information we have received from our owners who have had the new modified filters replaced, they carry out a soot regeneration on the new filter and spend a lot of time road testing these cars to get a zero ash reading which doesn't stay at zero for long.
Typically our owners are reporting that lots of fuel is used and lots of miles have been covered after the replacement of these filters.
We have documented cases of two cars that had ash levels over 50% after the filters were replaced, which was found when the customers asked to see the GPF data on their cars before they took collection.
Both our owners challenged this ash returning, and they were both told by the dealers that Porsche Technical said it was acceptable providing it didn't continue to increase beyond 50 %.
To back this up, we challenged a Porsche Dealer last year on one of our cars that had covered only 1600 miles after a new filter was fitted and it had 47% of ash recorded.
We asked the dealer to contact Porsche and ask them what would be the expected ash reading immediately after a new modified GPF was fitted.
They confirmed in writing that it could be anywhere between 0% and 50%, they said this below.
The value should stay steady and not be constantly increasing. If the value continues to increase, then this would indicate that the cause of the GPF high ash load has not been attended to and further investigation is required.
We have this statement documented on file.
This is because our cars do not have the adaptation function in the firmware to carry out a simple ash reset on a brand new GPF filter, and more worring no adaptation function regarding the replacement of the differential pressure sensor.
Regarding the warranty on these new filters, we have struggled to get a definitive answer on this subject.
We have seen a GPF filter replaced using the Porsche extended warranty because the AOS supposedly took out the GPF, this should definitely have the two year parts warranty.
Buts its all nonsense, these filters are not faulty, you only have to look at the tailpipes, no soot, if the substrate fails in any way, soot will be found in the tailpipes.
If we go back to the memo, the first sentence says.
The customer complains of the EML light on the dash and in some cases reduced power output from the vehicle.
We have had no reports of reduced power on any of our cars with this fault, no running issues at all, only one DTC P242F ash load to high.
When you look at the GPF data in the cars memory it always records zero soot values, on a filter thats showing an ash load value of 100%.
It then goes on to explain how ash can accumulate in the particulate filter.
Its obvious that this ash loading value is not real, because where as all the soot gone on a filter thats blocked up with ash.
The differential pressure sensor is not seeing any pressure build up in these filters, its the software algorithm thats giving a false reading.
And its continuing to give false readings after the new modified GPF filter is replaced.
Regarding future plans, yes we are constantly looking at other avenues but we cannot disclose these at this time.
Dave
Hi following on from my last post, enclose this video of a chap re learning a differential pressure sensor on a Porsche Macan diesel.
Begs the question why is this not on our cars
Dave
Begs the question why is this not on our cars
Dave
Wrightrubber
PCGB Member
Hi Dave
18 vehicles that have had the GPF replaced F.O.C is brilliant, well done!! That has saved the owners over £170K!!! (Not really a fabrication is it AW_GTS!!)
It begs the question, Porsche say it's not covered under the extended warranty, so why are they replacing them F.O.C? It's not a goodwill gesture as there is no goodwill from Porsche! I believe that they know it's been a problem from day one and all the information you have collated backs this up and is slowly backing them into a corner so the best option for them is to replace them F.O.C. to try and help the issue go away!!!
Just my opinion anyway!
Keep up the good work.
Regards
Mark
18 vehicles that have had the GPF replaced F.O.C is brilliant, well done!! That has saved the owners over £170K!!! (Not really a fabrication is it AW_GTS!!)
It begs the question, Porsche say it's not covered under the extended warranty, so why are they replacing them F.O.C? It's not a goodwill gesture as there is no goodwill from Porsche! I believe that they know it's been a problem from day one and all the information you have collated backs this up and is slowly backing them into a corner so the best option for them is to replace them F.O.C. to try and help the issue go away!!!
Just my opinion anyway!
Keep up the good work.
Regards
Mark
Thanks Mark.
Your opinion matters to me, you started us off over 3.5 years ago and its been quite a journey.
You will remember when your ash came back on your new filter you asked the Service Manager at your Porsche Dealership what happens if this happens again.
You were told they wouldn't be paying again, they knew then that this wasn't a permanent fix replacing these filters, because they refused our requests for a back pressure check way back then.
Around that time I purchased a few manometers to test the AOS and yours was the first car we tested, it was ok.
We then sent out these manometers on the next batch of cars, and found all had similar readings and confirmed the ash levels were not caused by the AOS.
They were adamant that your driving style had caused the premature ash accumulation, they couldn't blame the lack of Porsche service history because your car had full Porsche Service history.
We eventually managed to get them to give you your GPF data and when we checked the information provided it was quite obvious that it didn't make any sense at all.
They changed their mind, and agreed to replace it free of charge.
We went on to ask all the other owners with this same issue to get the GPF reports and this proved very successful in changing their mind.
Then along came the internal memo, that says it all, the fact that they had modified this GPF in the first year of production confirmed what we had said, nothing to do with driving style, lack of Porsche service history and certainly nothing to with what oil was put in the cars.
Its taken us along time to get to this point, its taken lots of conversations with owners who had been struggling with their Dealers who were blaming them for this ash level problem, only to find there is no ash.
And the fact that these new filters fill up with Ash so quickly again confirms this.
Let's just think about all the owners who were told they needed a new GPF filter, and couldn't afford to replace it, so they sold their cars.
Totally let down by Porsche and their Dealer network, its all coming to the surface now, and somebody is going to have some explaining to do.
There is no excuse for this behaviour and how these Porsche customers have been treated and that memo confirms it all.
Cheers Mark
Dave
Your opinion matters to me, you started us off over 3.5 years ago and its been quite a journey.
You will remember when your ash came back on your new filter you asked the Service Manager at your Porsche Dealership what happens if this happens again.
You were told they wouldn't be paying again, they knew then that this wasn't a permanent fix replacing these filters, because they refused our requests for a back pressure check way back then.
Around that time I purchased a few manometers to test the AOS and yours was the first car we tested, it was ok.
We then sent out these manometers on the next batch of cars, and found all had similar readings and confirmed the ash levels were not caused by the AOS.
They were adamant that your driving style had caused the premature ash accumulation, they couldn't blame the lack of Porsche service history because your car had full Porsche Service history.
We eventually managed to get them to give you your GPF data and when we checked the information provided it was quite obvious that it didn't make any sense at all.
They changed their mind, and agreed to replace it free of charge.
We went on to ask all the other owners with this same issue to get the GPF reports and this proved very successful in changing their mind.
Then along came the internal memo, that says it all, the fact that they had modified this GPF in the first year of production confirmed what we had said, nothing to do with driving style, lack of Porsche service history and certainly nothing to with what oil was put in the cars.
Its taken us along time to get to this point, its taken lots of conversations with owners who had been struggling with their Dealers who were blaming them for this ash level problem, only to find there is no ash.
And the fact that these new filters fill up with Ash so quickly again confirms this.
Let's just think about all the owners who were told they needed a new GPF filter, and couldn't afford to replace it, so they sold their cars.
Totally let down by Porsche and their Dealer network, its all coming to the surface now, and somebody is going to have some explaining to do.
There is no excuse for this behaviour and how these Porsche customers have been treated and that memo confirms it all.
Cheers Mark
Dave
It is simply poor electronic/ programming engineering then, the filters are fine, the sensors see a different position and the light pops up.
Inside VAG there must be a huge experience of these things, obviously not tapped into way back thus the car cannot be sorted.
I still can’t grasp that Porsche thought the fault was the filter itself, the engineers must have read the data just as you have collated.
The reaction from them is really poor ill informed or simply just to be ignored as lots of others want a Porsche, current and recent customers are disposable.
Arrogance?
Inside VAG there must be a huge experience of these things, obviously not tapped into way back thus the car cannot be sorted.
I still can’t grasp that Porsche thought the fault was the filter itself, the engineers must have read the data just as you have collated.
The reaction from them is really poor ill informed or simply just to be ignored as lots of others want a Porsche, current and recent customers are disposable.
Arrogance?
Morning all,
Just to give everyone an update on my blocked GPF issue and the ongoing discussions with the OPC.
The good news is that, with all the information shared on the forums, the support from Dave, and the detailed case I put forward to the OPC, Porsche agreed to carry out the checks outlined in the infamous memo. The OPC couldn’t/wouldn’t share the results with me, but they did confirm that Porsche had approved the replacement of the GPF — phew! That was around two weeks ago.
When I collected the car yesterday, I asked whether they had managed to identify the root cause of the failure that had resulted in the blocked GPF fault. Unfortunately, they couldn’t comment. However, at my request, they did provide me with the diagnostic report, which showed the oil ash level at 0%.
So, after driving just 30 miles, I’ve run my own diagnostic check today — and the oil ash level is already showing 3.41%.
If that rate continues, it looks like the filter could supposedly be showing as blocked again within around 1,000 miles.
Needless to say, I’ll be heading back to the OPC on Monday to discuss this further. I’ll keep you all updated.
Just to give everyone an update on my blocked GPF issue and the ongoing discussions with the OPC.
The good news is that, with all the information shared on the forums, the support from Dave, and the detailed case I put forward to the OPC, Porsche agreed to carry out the checks outlined in the infamous memo. The OPC couldn’t/wouldn’t share the results with me, but they did confirm that Porsche had approved the replacement of the GPF — phew! That was around two weeks ago.
When I collected the car yesterday, I asked whether they had managed to identify the root cause of the failure that had resulted in the blocked GPF fault. Unfortunately, they couldn’t comment. However, at my request, they did provide me with the diagnostic report, which showed the oil ash level at 0%.
So, after driving just 30 miles, I’ve run my own diagnostic check today — and the oil ash level is already showing 3.41%.
If that rate continues, it looks like the filter could supposedly be showing as blocked again within around 1,000 miles.
Needless to say, I’ll be heading back to the OPC on Monday to discuss this further. I’ll keep you all updated.
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
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
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
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
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!
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!
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
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
Attachments
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
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
Attachments
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
