Cayman 718 GPF Failure

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Morning, found something interesting the other day, going through some old GPF information I've collected recently.

It concerns a 2022 4.0 Cayman GTS, GPF report, it shows the K241 value Particulate filter, bank 1 diagnostic value of installation check %.
It also uses a K242 value for bank 2.
It recorded values of 46.4 and 48.3 %.

On our cars we have the same K241 values that never have any data recorded they always show 0.00%.

This seemed very strange, so I did a bit more research and found this information below.

ITDV is Installation Test Diagnostis Value

• The ECU has not yet been properly initialized or coded.
• A required basic setting or adaptation was skipped.
• The ECU was cloned or fitted without proper installation using the official PIWIS tool.

To resolve it:


Run the Installation Test in PIWIS (under “Maintenance/Repairs → Function Group → Installation Test”).

1. Complete all adaptations, coding, and calibrations.
2. Verify the ITDV status changes to “OK” or the expected success value.

Then I found this reference to any percentages recorded in these readings.

See photo below.

Between 40% to 60% says
Basic adaptations written (VIN), immobiliser sync, etc.

If you look at the higher value 60 to 80 % it covers
Functional checks (sensor calibration, internal tests).

We are well aware that Porsche Dealers are struggling to reset the oil ash values, after all the new parts have been fitted.

They have to carry out regenerations on brand new filters, and carry out extensive road testing, WHY.

They are now saying that an oil ash value of 56% showing on a vehicle thats had a new GPF fitted is ok, according to Porsche Technical.

We all know thats absolutely ridiculous

Could it be that if this ITDV check was not carried out correctly on the PDI on our faulty cars, or there was some possible software issue at the time, could this have caused this premature oil ash warning light to come on.

We have never seen any readings in our K241 values, but how do we know its was ok.

I have researched VW,s process when replacing a GPF filter this is what they do.

:
Yes, you must run an installation test to reset the Engine Control Unit (ECU) after replacing a GPF (Gasoline Particulate Filter) or DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) on a VW. This is necessary to clear the old filter's data, reset the ash ‣ounter, and calibrate the differential pressure sensor, ensuring the new filter can operate correctly. Without this procedure, the new filter can quickly become blocked, and vou may encounter performance issues or warning lights.

Well if its good for VW, it should be the same for use.

We will be now looking at this PWIS function to see if it does exist, and try and get more information about its function.

Dave

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Morning, found something interesting the other day, going through some old GPF information I've collected recently.

It concerns a 2022 4.0 Cayman GTS, GPF report, it shows the K241 value Particulate filter, bank 1 diagnostic value of installation check %.
It also uses a K242 value for bank 2.
It recorded values of 46.4 and 48.3 %.

On our cars we have the same K241 values that never have any data recorded they always show 0.00%.

This seemed very strange, so I did a bit more research and found this information below.

ITDV is Installation Test Diagnostis Value

• The ECU has not yet been properly initialized or coded.
• A required basic setting or adaptation was skipped.
• The ECU was cloned or fitted without proper installation using the official PIWIS tool.

To resolve it:


Run the Installation Test in PIWIS (under “Maintenance/Repairs → Function Group → Installation Test”).

1. Complete all adaptations, coding, and calibrations.
2. Verify the ITDV status changes to “OK” or the expected success value.

Then I found this reference to any percentages recorded in these readings.

See photo below.

Between 40% to 60% says
Basic adaptations written (VIN), immobiliser sync, etc.

If you look at the higher value 60 to 80 % it covers
Functional checks (sensor calibration, internal tests).

We are well aware that Porsche Dealers are struggling to reset the oil ash values, after all the new parts have been fitted.

They have to carry out regenerations on brand new filters, and carry out extensive road testing, WHY.

They are now saying that an oil ash value of 56% showing on a vehicle thats had a new GPF fitted is ok, according to Porsche Technical.

We all know thats absolutely ridiculous

Could it be that if this ITDV check was not carried out correctly on the PDI on our faulty cars, or there was some possible software issue at the time, could this have caused this premature oil ash warning light to come on.

We have never seen any readings in our K241 values, but how do we know its was ok.

I have researched VW,s process when replacing a GPF filter this is what they do.

:
Yes, you must run an installation test to reset the Engine Control Unit (ECU) after replacing a GPF (Gasoline Particulate Filter) or DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) on a VW. This is necessary to clear the old filter's data, reset the ash ‣ounter, and calibrate the differential pressure sensor, ensuring the new filter can operate correctly. Without this procedure, the new filter can quickly become blocked, and vou may encounter performance issues or warning lights.

Well if its good for VW, it should be the same for use.

We will be now looking at this PWIS function to see if it does exist, and try and get more information about its function.

Dave

Hi Dave
Does this mean they may not be carrying out the adaptions correctly after fitting a new filter or differential pressure sensor and it is recording old data?
Excellent research again Dave!
Regards
Mark

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Mark
Without prejudice

Yes it does,

I saw a video recently on a petrol Macan, and it showed a technician carrying out an adaption on a differential pressure sensor after it was replaced.

Just thinking about what we have come across, its quite simple when you think about this fault.

If on these cars this installation process wasn't done correctly on any of these faulty cars, then somebody has some explaining to do.

If this installation process is not on these cars, then again somebody has some explaining to do.

Maybe somebody at Porsche Technical Reading would like to answer our questions, afterall over the last 2.5 years we haven't had any feed back to the club about this issue of any kind.

Maybe none of them own a 718 2.0 or 2.5
with this current issue, one thing for sure is we are going to get to the bottom of this fault.

Any feedback from these recent posts would be really appreciated

Dave

 

[Paul-718gts]

Hi Dave,

Given the involvement of technicians from both Reading and Germany on my old car along with the money they must of spent in parts and labour, it would clearly suggest that this installation process is not on these cars.

 

[911hillclimber]

Yes VW have a way to deal with this, are part of the Group so Porsche could/should have followed the tech?

 

[JohnCRS]

Back in 2018 / 2019 when PPF's were introduced they would have been adapting software that was designed into the 718 platform when it was launched. At that time Porsche were protecting their independence from the rest of the VAG network to a greater extent than they do now. It is conceiveable that did their own thing with the development of their electronics and emmissionscontrol and this is one area where they got it wrong. For example, the fundamental design does not allow for a reset option, even if the management unit / ECU is swapped out. To correct it would require a very costly reengineering of the software, which potentially would have to be applied to all cars.

It appears to me that the calculations of ash loading require readings from different sensors. The accuracy of these sensors is subject to operational tolerances, usage, oil types etc. In a small percentage of cars these tolerances add up to a number that triggers the CEL. Porsche's policy is to address each case separately and ultimately, if all else fails, take the particular car out of circulation.

Another factor which we are starting to see, is cars that are out of warranty and also out of the Porsche network. For example, a purchaser buys a car from an independent dealer with a very short or no warranty. The CEL comes on and the owner is on his/her own, without any recourse. That owner has the choice of consulting an OPC or a specialist independent. We don't yet know how that will turn out. Watch this space!

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi John,

Brilliant post, spot on, and to add to your post.

Without prejudice

We are now looking at other models at the moment to confirm when using the PWIS diagnostic tester that they can carry out this adaptation process, if this is the case then we are on the right track.

All we need to do is prove that this program is missing on our 718 2.0 and 2.5 cars once, then we have the answer.

Run the Installation Test in PIWIS (under “Maintenance/Repairs → Function Group → Installation Test”).

1. Complete all adaptations, coding, and calibrations.
2. Verify the ITDV status changes to “OK” or the expected success value.

This would certainly explain why the Dealers are struggling to reset these filters. They are carrying out regenerations on the new modified filters, and doing hundreds of miles road testing these cars to no avail.

The Dealers are still telling our owners with the DTC P242F code that these filters are blocked and the only course of action is to replace the filter for a modified one as per the internal memo from Porsche.

The sad thing is, it seems that Porsche Readings Technical department are not telling the Dealers that these modified filters are not fixing the problem.

WHY WOULDN'T THEY,

This would save Porsche alot of money, and time, and stop are owners worrying about such a large repair cost they certainly do not need.

MISS DIAGNOSIS SPRINGS TO MIND

The internal memo says it all, December 2019 cars have the modified filter, they are currently fitting now.

They have known about this issue for a very long time, clearly something bad happened to the early cars in the first year of manufacture, for them to come up with a modified filter.

Funny they forget about all of this when they have been telling our owners its their fault, wrong oil and short journeys.

They are still telling our owners that incomplete soot regenerations have blocked the filter with ash, due to short journeys.

You would expect incomplete regenerations to create alot of soot, yet whenever we get the fault code P242F we never see any soot, and certainly do not see the soot regeneration request on the dashboard, it leaves a code.

Every one of our cars that have had the new modified filter fitted, still have an oil ash reading thats not acceptable.

Most of them have been sold because of this fault.

If we get proof that our cars do not have this adaptation function, and the other cars have it, then thats all we need to escalate this emission problem.

We will be in touch soon

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys and Girls

Without prejudice

Continuing on with our adaptation theory, enclose this video, I believe I posted this out a few years ago.

It explains the adaptation of a differential pressure sensor on a Porsche Macan, but not using the Porsche PWIS diagnostic tester.

Enclose a snap shot photo of the menu this guy described, clearly showing the functions available to reset.

The list includes.

Differential sensor learning
Particulate filter, check carbon content
Catalytic Particulate filter (CPF) Change

You would click on the above, if the filter wasn't blocked, ( but only after checking for back pressure, using the sensor information, and or doing a manual back pressure check).

And definitely after you have fitted a new DPF, or GPF filter.

Looks like we may be able to confirm the Macan as this function, but we will confirm its on the PIWIS very soon.

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Well another busy day with GPF issues, and yes the Dealers are still trying to charge our owners for fitting GPF filters they do not need.

We need conformation from Porsche Reading Technical that our 2019 718 Boxster, Cayman 2.0 and 2.5 cars have the adaptation facility on these cars.

This is the only way of sorting this problem out, the information I am getting, is they do not have this on these cars.

If this is the case, it certainly would explain what's been happening over the last few years.

We can arrange for any of our faulty cars to into their nearest Porsche Dealer, have the PWIS diagnostic tester connected to the car, and see if we can see the adaptation input screen, and even try it out on our faulty car while its in the garage workshop.

Sounds like a good plan.

We are all getting very tired of this problem, its causing alot of problems for alot of people, its time it stopped.



Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Morning Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Some more detail of the adaptation function on PWIS (Porsche diagnostic tester).

Step 1: Navigate to the Installation Test

• Open the PIWIS diagnostic tool.
• Go to the "Maintenance/Repairs" menu.
• Select "Function Group" and then choose "Installation Test".

Step 2: Complete all required tasks

• Follow the on-screen instructions in the "Installation Test" module.
• Complete all the prompted tasks, which may include adaptations, coding, and calibrations.
• Ensure you complete each step as it is presented by the software.

Step 3: Verify the result

• After all steps are completed, check the status of the Installation Test Drive Verification (ITDV).
• The status should change to "OK" or a similar success value, confirming that the test was successful.

We will be asking Dealers to check if this function is available on our faulty cars, it doesn't take long to have a quick look.

It should have been mentioned on the internal memo that was sent out in March this year by Porsche, instructing their dealers to carry out the following checks below if the DTC P242F was present.

Several causes of the high ash load have been found across various vehicles therefore to prevent repeat issues it is important to check all possible causes of high ash load before proceeding with any repair. These include completing cylinder leakage checks to ensure oil is not entering the cylinder, checks of the intake and exhaust for signs of excessive oil build up which could be a result of a leak from the oil separators, turbocharger or valve stem seals. Itis also important to check the operation of the turbocharger actuator to ensure this is functioning correctly and check the OPF differential pressure sensor for correct functionality ensuring the pipes to the diferential pressure sensor are not blocked or restricted.

This is quite alot of things to check, yet this adaptation check was not included in this comprehensive check list above, and neither was a simple back pressure check to confirm if back pressure was actually present.

Although everyone of our cars had no reported high hPa pressure reading from the differential sensor, a blocked filter would show a reading over 100 hPa, never mind displaying other running issues.

This adaptation process is designed to stop this type of thing happening and would certainly solve all our problems by resetting the algorithm that can create this fault.

When we look back at all the work that was carried out on Pauls car, his engine was removed, and stripped down looking for possible internal oil consumption issues. Nothing was found, then a new engine was fitted along with a new turbo.

And after all that work, the car was still registering an oil ash % figure that was unacceptable, bearing in mind the car had not even left the Dealership, and certainly not been driven again by Paul.

Sadly Paul never drove the car again, and decided to move into a 4.0 GTS Boxster, not surprising after all the months without his car.

We have another car thats also had the engine removed looking for oil consumption issues, that again were not present, and its still got unacceptable oil ash % levels.

Has I said yesterday we have dealers still insisting that these filters are still full of ash, and the GPF filter needs to be replaced at a cost of over 9K.

This is absolutely ridiculous, in fact unbelievable that this is still happening.

Its about time the Dealers stopped this nonsense, and told Porsche this has to stop.

Between them both they are doing a brilliant job of destroying the reputation of our 718 cars that have this GPF emission ASH control issue.

What they need to realise is, its not showing them in a good light, their customers are sadly selling these cars because of this issue, and they are losing customers who would certainly have never thought of getting rid of their cars.

In fact every owner I have dealt with on this issue, over the last 2.5 years, have always said they loved these cars, but they had lost faith in the car and definitely the Dealers.

So let's make this simple adaptation check to be the first thing the Dealer looks at, its easy to do, and it could stop all this unnecessary time being spent in fitting parts that are not faulty, never mind all the stress and worry its causing.

Sorry to go on again, but I can't let go of this problem, my phone just keeps ringing.

Dave

 

[Wrightrubber]

Excellent Dave, when you put it like that it seems so simple for them to check it, so why aren't they doing it? Like you say it puts them in a bad light and makes them look totally incompetent!
Regards
Mark

 

[911hillclimber]

I can't think of a reason why I would go to an OPC, thought it when I had spent money on their examination of the white smoke on my 987.2 years ago, utterly inconclusive effort.
Laura Wardle on here told me how to fix it and she was right. No tools, no work, no cost.
I won't be having another Porsche for various experiences with my 987.2, and this 'filter' pantomime just persuades me more that is the right choice for me.

That the OPC cannot/will not do as Dave says above seems they cannot be bothered about the cars and the purchasers I guess because they have a queue of people wanting to buy Porsche's other models.
2019 was a very long time ago for them.
Porsche sales have collapsed, but they think their reputation is sky high?

Glad I'm not in this ring of frustration, and I do hope the Porsche attitude will change very soon for those who are trapped with a 2019 car.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Graham

Without prejudice

Thanks for your response, your right its very frustrating that Porsche haven't even engaged with the Club. Afterall they have a connection, our members, and anybody out there that is lucky to be in a position to own a Porsche.

It seems that they would rather abandon these owners, then help them with a fix that sorts this issue out.

At the end of the day we have had to apply the necessary detailed technical information regarding their GPF reports, that clearly show that this algorithm is less than perfect.

This has forced them to reconsider their desision to charge our owners for replacing the GPF, and embark on a journey of replacing so many parts that clearly didn't need replacing at their cost thankfully.

Both Porsche and their Dealers have jointly denied the fault on these cars, and it was nothing to do with them, and it was the owners that were at fault, using the wrong engine oil, driving style, and they even changed the extended warranty policy by verbally telling our owners it did not included the GPF filter.
Its now clearly written into the exclusion section on this years new policies.

Totally unnecessary, because the GPF filters are not the cause of this issue, this has been a very serious case of miss diagnosis on this fault on these cars.

When you really look at what has happened over the last few years its hard to believe, that they thought they could get away with this.

If it turns out that we are right and our cars do not have this adaptation function in the management system, then this will surley confirm that that Porsche and the Dealers have been aware of this right from the beginning.

The beginning it seems was in 2019 when these cars were sold, and durring that year they had issues with this DTC P242F code and had to bring out a modified GPF.

This is detailed in the last paragraph of the internal memo that came out in March this year.

They also said this in the memo below.

If no causes can be located and the above checks are all confirmed as OK then 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 not reset when the OPF regeneration is attempted then the OPF should be replaced and the vehicle retested. The new OPF's (982AF254400) have been modified to prevent this issue. All vehicles with a production date later than December 2019 should already have the modified OPF.

Well most of our faulty cars were registered early 2019

To reset the oil ash load, you would need the adaptation function in order to do it correctly, trying to do a regeneration is only one part of the equation, if its required at all, bearing in mind we see very little soot values, and very low differential pressure sensor values.

Porsche are now telling the Dealers to tell us that an oil ash reading coming back at 58% is now acceptable, and when can you pick your car up, and no further work is going to be done on your car.

This is what's happening now.

We will be reaching a point very soon, where we will need help to convince Porsche that this problem needs resolving, because its not going away.


Hopefully we will get some indication soon, that help is on its way

Fingers crossed

Dave

 

[911hillclimber]

Why were the filters re-designed in 2019?
A question for Porsche, nobody else to answer as only they will know.
Presumably the reports were there then, the filters were not working according to the car.
You would only redesign to 1: eradicate an issue, 2: enhance reliability, 3: improve safety / performance or 4: lower costs.

Once redesigned and signed-off the new design would enter production having resolved the issues presented.
Was the re-design for something other than this issue I wonder? (ie the filters fractured due to vibration or similar)

How can a new filter have anything inside it but air? Surely all readings would be 'ZERO' once the car had been re-set.

As a retired New Product Design Director who also had a good stint in automotive engineering, I cannot see how this can be ignored, how customers are discarded, and seemingly responsibility is shunned. We would never act this way, the car manufacturer would never allow us to act this way and we were far smaller than Porsche! We made safety critical parts for many manufacturers by the million.

Wonder what their Mission Statement today is (or was in 2019)?

They could be beavering away in the R&D Dept. I guess,
Hope so.
With all your quality work you will find a crack to open this up.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Graham,
Without prejudice

Yes we have gaping holes at the moment, your right about the early GPF replacements, but we will not get any answers, the fact they had to do this, and they are still chasing the same DTC P242F oil ash load exceeded, is all the proof we need.

We just need to push on, and get to the truth of all this quickly, before any more people are affected by this issue.

Dave

 

[JohnCRS]

Just to outline why it is so difficult to engage with Porsche - if they look us in the eye and say that ash loads of 60% are OK, the car has no CEL light on and is performing as normally, then what is the issue? Well, the issue is that OPC's do not seem to have read the memo and are back to trying to charge £9000 to turn the CEL off.

Our answer is, effectively, that there is nothing wrong with the GPF and, even if there were, this would be the result of a failure elsewhere and therefore should be covered by warranty. Go fix.

There are a number of scenarios that Dave is preparing for right now:
1. Where a dealer says that the only way to get the CEL light out is to pay us £9000, or take your car away. So far this has been addressed by argument and involvement of Porsche Reading, but the fear is that we will get an OPC who just digs in.
2. Where an owner who is out of warranty and the OPC network. The CEL comes on and they take the car to an indepandent specialist. We must wait to see what such an indie will do, and hope that we find one willing to work with us.
3. Where a car which has had a replacement GPF gets a CEL and the fault code, thus proving that the fix does not work. (We have seen repaired cars with high ash loads but no CEL and Porsche say there is nothing wrong)

Any one of these situations will give us some more leverage to have another go at Porsche about these cars.

(Another factor to be born in mind is that, even with the CEL light on, as far as we know these cars will still pass the normal emissions test. That in itself seems odd if the GPF is blocked, yet the car is performing normally.)

We keep going because we care. Porsche do not seem to.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi John

Spot on with your comments, we have more investigations to do, but its all coming together, and the best bit is we are right to challenge Porsche, because emission control systems are very important, and have to be functioning correctly.

Thanks again for your continued support, have a good weekend

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Without prejudice

Another busy week, we are trying to get our Porsche dealers to show us the manual adaptation process on their PWIS diagnostic testers on our 718 cars that are faulty.

We think its a reasonable request bearing in mind all the trouble we are having getting the oil ash % readings to stay at an acceptable level, after new GPFs have been fitted.

This is some VW info I found on this subject below, on how they carry out this function.

How to perform the reset.

Use a diagnostic tool: Connect a diagnostic tool that can access the vehicle's engine control module (ECU).
Locate the function: Navigate through the tool's menu to find the function, which may be labeled "Reseting of learned values of particulate filter" (IDE00467), "Particle Filter Initialization," or a similar option under "Basic settings" or "Adaptations".
Initiate the reset: Follow the on-screen prompts to execute the reset procedure. This may include confirming that a new filter has been installed, or cleaned.
Confirm the reset: The tool should indicate that the reset was successful, and the learned values should return to a base state (e.g., ash volume of zero).
Drive and re-evaluate: After the reset, it's a good practice to perform a drive cycle or a forced regeneration to allow the system to fully recalibrate.

Looks good, hopefully we will get some cooperation from our dealers.

A while ago I managed to get hold of this information on the Internet, it explains in great detail the method for determining the loading state of a particulate filter on a motor vehicle.

Every motor manufacturer must submit this information regarding how their emission control system will work.

Its generally based around an algorithm, and how the algorithm is put together using differential pressure, exhaust flow, exhaust temperature and specific computed models.

Very interesting to see this type of data, and even harder to understand it, enclose below 2 pages of the 8 page report.

We are also looking at other 2019 models to see if this manual adaptation of the differential pressure sensor and the GPF are present.

Will keep you all up-to-date with our progress

Have a good weekend

Dave

 

[Paul-718gts]

Hi David,
I may be wrong but given my experience of this issue you won’t get any cooperation from either the dealers or the Brand as their system doesn’t allow for this reset process.. and they know it.
Hence why they are burying their heads in the bucket of sand called .. “if we ignore this problem long enough,it will go away eventually “
I think we have no option but to approach someone who regulates emissions based on the specification of the car when it passed its initial approval during the design and approval process.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Paul

Without prejudice

Yes your right, we are all getting tired of all this silliness, over 2.5 years of fighting to get some justice for all the people who have suffered, and are still suffering with this emission control issue on their cars.

And we still are seeing dealers trying to charge over 9K to fix this issue, by fitting a new GPF filter, its absolutely ridiculous that they still think that these filters are actually blocked.

If these vehicles do not have this facility to reset correctly the oil ash % level, then that means this has been the problem right back to 2019, when they modified these GPF filters to stop this very issue.

We know from the internal memo, that this was the case, its in writing for everybody to see now.

The fact that Porsche and their dealers have tried to keep this information away from us, is absolutely disgusting, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

If we do not get the response we need, in trying to sort this problem out, we will be speaking to the Emission people concerned, and see if this emmision control fault is something of a concern to them.

We can only ask the question, we have right to ask this question, is this fault on our cars acceptable.

Hopefully someone from Porsche Technical will contact the Club and get things moving.

Dave