Menu toggle

Cayman 718 GPF Failure

I wonder if the club has the capability and know how to see how many are linked to a Porsche IP address ?
Could this information give us some insight into whether anyone within the Brand is taking this issue seriously or at least acknowledging it ?

i think the Club's privacy policy doesn't allow that

We collect data from our website for a number of reasons, primarily to provide you with the most useful and relevant information and services from Porsche Club GB. We do this through collecting and analysing both anonymous, or aggregate, data, and personal data volunteered by you online.
 
We have enough information to know that Porsche GB are aware of this issue but, it seems, even they have not come to a definitive conclusion as to the cause of these readings. As Dave's work has demonstrated, there are so many contributory factors. Porsche continue to deal with these issues on an individual basis and Dave has a number of cases ongoing, with new factors emerging every week.

We are trying to put together a follow up to the PP article but we still need Porsche's response if possible.
 
We have enough information to know that Porsche GB are aware of this issue but, it seems, even they have not come to a definitive conclusion as to the cause of these readings. As Dave's work has demonstrated, there are so many contributory factors. Porsche continue to deal with these issues on an individual basis and Dave has a number of cases ongoing, with new factors emerging every week.

We are trying to put together a follow up to the PP article but we still need Porsche's response if possible.
Hi John,

Well all I can say is that Porsche need to do something PDQ to support the owners and OPCs as I am just about to have my 3rd GPF fitted and the car has done less than 14k miles.. it’s been back at the OPC for coming up to 10 weeks after the second one registered 46% in less and 800 miles and my engine has been out,stripped down and rebuilt and put back in..

I am still being told it’s not a software issue ??????🤦🏻‍♂️
 
3 GPFs and an engine rebuild, which presumably didn’t throw-up any significant issues?😳

And Porsche still hasn’t got to the bottom of the problem! How long has your car been off the road Paul?

I’d be pushing for a new engine [including a complete exhaust system] and some hefty financial compensation for all the inconvenience.

Jeff
 
3 GPFs and an engine rebuild, which presumably didn’t throw-up any significant issues?😳

And Porsche still hasn’t got to the bottom of the problem! How long has your car been off the road Paul?

I’d be pushing for a new engine [including a complete exhaust system] and some hefty financial compensation for all the inconvenience.

Jeff
Hi Jeff
Had the car just over a year and it’s spent 18 weeks at an OPC.
 
That’s a ridiculous amount of time Paul.

In case you’ve not seen it, you may be interested in this thread pertaining to an issue with 992 wheel centre-locks, especially if you’re using finance to purchase your car because it could be a route to claiming financial compensation through a vehicle off road:


Good luck!

Jeff
 
You could also go down the route of rejecting the car and class it as not fit for purpose. In the US it's call Lemon Law.

Dan
 
Hi Paul, I am aware of the issues you have had with your car and the teatment you have had from both the OPC and Porsche. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that despite the work they have done on the car , they have still not found a solution, or even got to the bottom of the issue. Yours is unfortunately the most extreme case and if there is a way of assisting, please drop me a mail or give me a call.
 
Hi Paul, I am aware of the issues you have had with your car and the teatment you have had from both the OPC and Porsche. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that despite the work they have done on the car , they have still not found a solution, or even got to the bottom of the issue. Yours is unfortunately the most extreme case and if there is a way of assisting, please drop me a mail or give me a call.
Hi John,
Yes you are correct, I am currently awaiting the arrival of a new GPF as apparently the 2nd one that was fitted was an exchange part(apparently standard practice by Porsche Warranty to fit refurbished parts) and they now think this is the issue ??? 🤦🏻‍♂️
Unfortunately it appears to me as if the OPCs receive little and no help from the brand with Technical issues like this and due to warranty constraints any self driven investigation work is very limited by the franchise.
Unfortunately I wouldn’t say my case is the most extreme, I would say I am further down the line than others and have been very thorough in documenting my journey along with setting and agreeing key tests after work has been completed with the OPC which has highlighted that previously just changing these hasn’t fixed the problem.. (I feel for those that either paid or contributed before Dave got hold of this)
The good news is that unlike others my OPC and its Gold Techs have been very good in supporting trying to resolve this issue.
To assist me/us if you do have any contacts or leverage within Readings HQ then I/we would appreciate you rattling their cage for a official response from the Brand, we are not going to give up on this until they have provided both a root cause and fix…

My major concern is that if it does prove to be a software fault we don’t end up in another Dieselgate saga….
 
I was at a regional meet last night and was speaking to one of the staff from the hosting OPC. They said that they'd had a few GPFs replaced on the 2.0 models. They didn't say whether they were done under warranty or not but they said that speaking to one of the Techs, the theory was it's down to software.

Dan
 
Hi Dan,

Without Prejudice

This could be good news, coming from a dealer, I had a phone call from one of our Cayman 718 drivers last night, that I have been talking to for over a year now.

He contacted me last March 2024, with the usual GPF fault and was quoted the usual 8K.

We agreed that after several checks on other vehicles showing no back pressure, he should drive the vehicle and wait to see if Porsche come up with a repair solution.

So a year on and over 10,000 miles covered, with the warning light P242F coming on and off only 3 times, and also a service at an OPC last November, the car as run great without any other issues.

No problems found with performance or economy during the 10K.

Surley with a supposedly blocked GPF filter, this could not happen, we had a dealer recently who told one of our owners that their could be a fire risk on his car if he drove 150 miles to the garage.

The car was picked up by a recovery truck to investigate the GPF 100% oil ash level exceeded.

This car is still in the workshop after having the engine removed and stripped down looking for internal oil contamination.

Nothing found that would cause an Oil / ASH buildup that would fill a filter to 100% in such a low mileage covered.

I believe the reluctance of Porsche Reading Technical Department to confirm that the car software is telling the truth, is making this situation even worse.

Why have none of the dealers concerned with this issue on our cars, not given our owners the proof that a back pressure check as been carried out, from the beginning of diagnosis.

Also what happened to our GPF filters in 2019, that made Porsche modify a GPF that had been on these cars less than 12 months.

We need answers to these questions please.

Regards
David
 
Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

I would like to share this information I found recently, while helping out an owner with a 991.2 2019, with quess what a supposedly failed GPF filter.

We manged to get a copy of his GPF report which I can share with you.

Thankfully this was all we needed to persuade the dealer and Porsche to cover the repair for the bank 1 GPF filter under warranty.

If you look at the report you will see K231 bank 1 oil ash at 100%, looks familiar.

If you look at the differential pressure value K251 it's at -0.25 hpa, looks familiar.

A very low pressure reading for a supposedly blocked filter.

Now bearing in mind the bank 1 GPF is apparently blocked at 100%, so why are both soot calculated values the same at .78%.

The bank 2 oil ash level K232 is showing 58.04%, so that's on its way to, according to Porsche, this wasn't replaced under warranty.

What I don't understand is how can the exhaust gas calculated temperatures T255,T256,T251,and T252 be all the same, yet you would expect the bank 1 GPF filter to be running alot hotter with all the back pressure from the supposedly blocked filter.

If this isn't a case of the software on this car being incorrect I don't know what is.

Afterall we have enough evidence now that fitting new expensive GPF filters doesn't correct the oil ash % value, and the dealers are struggling to re set them to zero.

When is the penny going to to drop, that the software on these cars is flawed, and needs attention.

My theory, for what it's worth, is because of the fact that the soot regeneration light and message does not appear to be working on any of our cars, it could be allowing the oil ash level % to come on far to soon.

We know that in the coding of the ECU we can adjust, or remove the oil ash % warning light which clears the code.

What we need is Porsche to look into this software, and stop fitting these exhausts.

Just have a look at this 991.2 report, and any feedback would be appreciated.

Many thanks

Dave
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250328_162227_WhatsApp.jpg
    Screenshot_20250328_162227_WhatsApp.jpg
    418.2 KB · Views: 12
Morning Guys&Girls

Well, we are now on 43K views, we are on the home straight, with more information supporting our cause.
Have a good weekend
Dave
 
Hi Dave,

That 991.2 report reads like a work of fiction! Apart from the Bank1 vs Bank2 measured oil ash load, the figures for both banks are identical [why is Bank1 twice that of Bank2?], and how is it that the calculated exhaust gas temperature of 346 degC in the filter is more than 5 times that of the calculated temperature upstream of the filter, the latter value being [an unbelievable] 61 degC? Being calculated values , obviously there’s something amiss with the software being used to compute these [fictional] values.

Do the dealers actually look at these figures? They’re having a laugh aren’t they?😀

Keep up the good work. It’ll pay-off … eventually!

Jeff
 
Hi Jeff,

Without Prejudice

Thanks for coming back to us on this subject.

The reason why the upstream exhaust temperatures are lower is the engine wasn't running at the time of the diagnostic test.

When the engine is running the algorithm kicks in, taking information from other engine sensors.

This is the same on our 718 cars.

We will at some point be checking out cars post 2019 to see if the oil ash % software readings show similar range settings to our cars.

Bearing in mind these cars have exhaust temperature sensors fitted, not like our
2.0, 2.5 718 vehicles.

From information we have received both the GPF filters and the exhaust temperature sensors have been superseded since production.

Sounds familiar.

Regards
David
 
As Dave would say,

Without Prejudice…..

Well, as a very quick up date my car has been with the OPC for 14 weeks next Tuesday, 3rd GPF fitted after under 14,000 miles car from new.This time a new GPF and not a warranty refurb was fitted and it showed over 50% full after 20 mile road test drive.
As far as I am aware the car has had more mechanical tests completed over the last 14 weeks than a space shuttle prior to launching and the Brand still can’t find the root cause.
Yet again I have mentioned the software as a possible root cause but for whatever reason the brand appear to be steering around this potential root cause.. I guess the ultimate question is why.. ?

I can only assume any potential software updates needed on anything related to emissions needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities. I am sure we can all remember the recent VW diesel gate saga where it all went wrong.

From reading a lot of posts on the 718 forum a lot of owners appeared to have overcome this issue by replacing the CAT with a aftermarket part and tuning the car by adjusting the software to overcome any challenges… and in some instances gain more power..

I guess that’s fine if your car isn’t under warranty as long as you still pass the MOT emissions test.

As far as I am aware the club hasn’t been able to get a response from the Brand and there have been no follow ups to last months PP article as promised..

I guess everyone is hoping this issue is going to go away.. well it’s not as I believe we are up to 44,000 views.

Dave keep up the good work I am sure we are close to opening Pandora’s box
 
I'm retired from my position with the Club now, still writing for Porsche Post but everything else is passed on to others. I'll email Steve Johnson to make sure he is up to speed with the plan and copy the senior in-house people. I hope they pick it up and I'll keep encouraging them, but I no longer have a position that allows me to thump the table with Porsche GB or to tell the Club what web and social media content to post.
 
If it is a software issue the simplest route would be to do a software update as soon as possible and compensate those that have been affected and are out of pocket due to the GPF issue.

Nipping it in the bud and all that.

Dan.
 
Morning Richard,

Hope you are well, and enjoying retirement,

Did you manage to get any feed back from the CEO and the FD at Porsche Reading concerning your article regarding the GPF issues on the 718 cars in the Porsche Post magazine March edition, you said they requested personal copies of the magazine.

It would be brilliant to get their comments, on what is now becoming a very serious emission function fault with our 718 cars.

Without Prejudice

Pauls post is very disappointing, although we where quite certain that another GPF fitted to his car would not fix his oil ash issue.

Following my post the other day regarding the recent information sent out to the the Porsche dealer network on the 3rd March this year, concerning our Particulate filter fault.

I would like to ask its author some questions, he said in the document, any further questions please email me directly, hopefully he will give me permission to contact him.

The last paragraph on his document reads as follows.

In some cases the OPF can be recovered therefore a OPF regeneration should be attempted to see if the OPF ash load is able to be reset.

If this has already been attempted or the ash load level doesn't reset when the OPF regeneration is attempted, then the OPF should be replaced and the vehicle retested.

The new OPFs (982 254 400 AF) have been modified to prevent this issue.

All vehicles with a production date later than December 2019 should already have a modified OPF and are not relevant to this document.

Well, all our vehicles were built before December 2019, and if they had shown the OPF DTC P242F they would certainly have been replaced under the manufactures warranty.

Time goes by, then all of a sudden a software ticking clock sets a warning light, oil ash load to high, and we are off.

The dealers tell our owners, its the the wrong oil used, your driving style creates a high oil ash content, and do not look for support from your Porsche Extended Warranty, because even though the OPF is not listed as an excluded part, we have decided it is excluded, because we class it as a service item.

So hard luck.

Two years on and lots of time spent proving to Porsche Technical that the OPF is not the issue to this fault, we have finally arrived at a positive conclusion, SOFTWARE.

All this upset, as been due to a known fault going back to the first year of production, and we had no idea.

Because of this ridiculous situation, many of our cars have been sold, had their OPF filters removed, tunned out, and the residual value on these cars as declined, to the point that the Porsche dealers are not stocking these 2019 cars on their forecourts in numbers.

Its unacceptable that these vehicles cannot be fixed by Manufacture who built them, Pauls car as been in 14 weeks, and still not fixed.

Engines removed and stripped down, on two of our cars, looking for internal oil contamination, to support a 100% oil ash reading that's never been correct in any of our 718s, and now two OPF filters replaced, and we still have high oil ash readings.

And what's even more ridiculous no exhaust back pressure checks have been carried out by any of our Porsche Dealer Workshops.

Its also unacceptable that any body should have been charged for the replacement of an OPF filter that was known to be a possible problem all those years ago, and to make matters worse clearly does not rectify the problem, and is still ongoing.

And I believe that anybody that has suffered financially because of this manufacturing defect, that they should be compensated.

Any feedback would be appreciated as always

Kind Regards

Dave
 

Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members

Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the Club, who shall have no liability in respect of them or the accuracy of the content. The Club assumes no responsibility for any effects arising from errors or omissions.

Porsche Club Great Britain gives no warranties, guarantees or assurances and makes no representations or recommendations regarding any goods or services advertised on this site. It is the responsibility of visitors to satisfy themselves that goods and/or services supplied by any advertiser are bona fide and in no instance can the Porsche Club Great Britain be held responsible.

When responding to advertisements please ensure that you satisfy yourself of any applicable call charges on numbers not prefixed by usual "landline" STD Codes. Information can be obtained from the operator or the white pages. Before giving out ANY information regarding cars, or any other items for sale, please satisfy yourself that any potential purchaser is bona fide.

Directors of the Board of Porsche Club GB, Club Office Staff, Register Secretaries and Regional Organisers are often requested by Club members to provide information on matters connected with their cars and other matters referred to in the Club Rules. Such information, advice and assistance provided by such persons is given in good faith and is based on the personal experience and knowledge of the individual concerned.

Neither Porsche Club GB, nor any of the aforementioned, shall be under any liability in respect of any such information, advice or assistance given to members. Members are advised to consult qualified specialists for information, advice and assistance on matters connected with their cars at all times.

Back
Top