Greenman986S
PCGB Member
I told my OPC this when they offered me 2.0 2019.
Not surprisingly , they refused to put in writing it would be covered so I walked away. 8 weeks later the car was still on sale...
Cayman 718 GPF Failure
- Thread starter Wrightrubber
- Start date
Not surprisingly , they refused to put in writing it would be covered so I walked away. 8 weeks later the car was still on sale...
Hi, it's from a well known independent on SOR, inspection next week.
As it is a SOR deal, the dealer is not offering any form of warranty, only brokering the deal between you and the private seller. This does enable the reaminder of the Porsche extended warranty to be transferred to you but, as you say, this does not cover the GPF.
Only a very small percentage of cars seem to be affected, but it is certainly an added risk. In the first instance I would speak to the independent dealer and ask them what their position is on this problem.
Only a very small percentage of cars seem to be affected, but it is certainly an added risk. In the first instance I would speak to the independent dealer and ask them what their position is on this problem.
I would imagine they will say is that they are the middleman and any issues aren't down to them. It's worth having a VAL report done, as Dave has mentioned in a previous post, to see what the figures look like and maybe discuss the results with him. Fingers crossed there isn't an issue.
I'd like to see more stats on a VIN window though. It would give more of an indication as to whether there is an issue with a batch of cars. Saying that, I've just checked the VIN on my previous 2020 Cayman 2.0 and it falls within the 1000 VIN window Dave has mentioned however, in the 10000 miles and 18 month I owned it the only real issue I had was with the turbo actuator sticking and as a result the turbo was replaced when the OPC took in and did the 111 point check.
Dan
I'd like to see more stats on a VIN window though. It would give more of an indication as to whether there is an issue with a batch of cars. Saying that, I've just checked the VIN on my previous 2020 Cayman 2.0 and it falls within the 1000 VIN window Dave has mentioned however, in the 10000 miles and 18 month I owned it the only real issue I had was with the turbo actuator sticking and as a result the turbo was replaced when the OPC took in and did the 111 point check.
Dan
If it's OPC could the buyer request to see the soot and ash data and then make an informed decision?
Hi Holy_Joe
Without prejudice
It shouldn't matter who is selling the car, a copy of a GPF condition report should be part of the selling process bearing in mind whats been happening over the last few years.
You would expect that this issue is well known now
in the Porsche Specialist circles, so there should be no excuse to provide this information.
Its very sad that we have to ask for this information, but thats because the Manufacturer of these cars and the Dealers are not treating this fault with the urgency it requires.
After over 2.5 years of research and having to convince the Dealers and Porsche Technical that the remedy to fix this fault is an obvious miss diagnosis, is very frustrating.
We have enough evidence on file that these modified GPF filters are not fixing this fault.
But something is happening at the moment regarding the Dealers getting authorisation to fit these modified filters.
We have been waiting months for news from Porsche Dealers regarding vehicles that have the EML warning light on, and the DTC P242F present,(Particulate filter-ash load to high).
We are having to constantly chase the Dealers , who are not coming back to our owners in a time frame that would be reasonable, which is definitely not helping.
Maybe they are seeing what we are seeing, and it would be very embarrassing for them to continue with this line of repair.
This is a situation that can not carry on, we expect alot more from this Brand, and hopefully they will support their customers in their time of need.
We just need Porsche Technical to send out a statement that they will support their customers, and a fix for this fault is on its way.
Fingers crossed
Dave
Without prejudice
It shouldn't matter who is selling the car, a copy of a GPF condition report should be part of the selling process bearing in mind whats been happening over the last few years.
You would expect that this issue is well known now
in the Porsche Specialist circles, so there should be no excuse to provide this information.
Its very sad that we have to ask for this information, but thats because the Manufacturer of these cars and the Dealers are not treating this fault with the urgency it requires.
After over 2.5 years of research and having to convince the Dealers and Porsche Technical that the remedy to fix this fault is an obvious miss diagnosis, is very frustrating.
We have enough evidence on file that these modified GPF filters are not fixing this fault.
But something is happening at the moment regarding the Dealers getting authorisation to fit these modified filters.
We have been waiting months for news from Porsche Dealers regarding vehicles that have the EML warning light on, and the DTC P242F present,(Particulate filter-ash load to high).
We are having to constantly chase the Dealers , who are not coming back to our owners in a time frame that would be reasonable, which is definitely not helping.
Maybe they are seeing what we are seeing, and it would be very embarrassing for them to continue with this line of repair.
This is a situation that can not carry on, we expect alot more from this Brand, and hopefully they will support their customers in their time of need.
We just need Porsche Technical to send out a statement that they will support their customers, and a fix for this fault is on its way.
Fingers crossed
Dave
Sorry Guys & Girls
Without prejudice
I forgot to mention, if Porsche Technical need to look at a petrol GPF system that seems to work on their cars, that doesn't have high ash values, and we haven't heard of a vehicle showing the DTC code P242F on the dashboard yet.
All they have to do is look on their 4.0 cars, the GPF reports we have seen on these cars look totally different to our cars, and make more sense.
Just a thought
Dave
Without prejudice
I forgot to mention, if Porsche Technical need to look at a petrol GPF system that seems to work on their cars, that doesn't have high ash values, and we haven't heard of a vehicle showing the DTC code P242F on the dashboard yet.
All they have to do is look on their 4.0 cars, the GPF reports we have seen on these cars look totally different to our cars, and make more sense.
Just a thought
Dave
I still think the Brand does not have a viable solution for this design of car. VAG must have a huge expertise in this field so maybe pride at Porsche is stopping thier involvement?
Does a car with this code stop running? Is it still driveable as nothing is actually wrong mechanically just electronically.
If it is electronics alone, then wouldn't all these cars have this issue?
Does a car with this code stop running? Is it still driveable as nothing is actually wrong mechanically just electronically.
If it is electronics alone, then wouldn't all these cars have this issue?
HI Guys & Girls
Without prejudice
Well, just had another GPF report sent to me with the usual no soot values, oil ash measured at 100%, engine light on, DTC code P242F, and the differential pressure sensor reading at 4.65 hPa.
The Dealer says the car needs a new GPF filter because its blocked with Ash, and the cost to replace is 9K.
How many GPF reports showing this info, is it going to take Porsche and their Dealers to except that these filters are not blocked with Ash. If they carried out a simple back pressure check on the input sensor pipe to the sensor with a manometer this would show them that no pressure is present and it would check the sensors reading thats sent to the ECU.
Over this last week we have managed to get some testing information from two Porsche independent garages and one customer.
We asked these guys to specifically check the function of the differential pressure sensors.
The checks involved checking the sensor reading with ignition on, engine not running, and then a further checks with engine running.
They all found that when the ignition was on, engine not running, none of the cars showed a value around zero, pressure is created when the engine is running.
They then started the car and recorded the reading, they then switched off the engine, then switched on the ignition, and found the readings very similar to the running readings.
One of our techs couldn't believe what he was seeing, so he removed both pipes to the sensor and made sure they were clear, which they were.
He repeated the test and he had the same readings, with ignition on, engine not running a pressure value was found.
I mentioned on a previous post about a static offset function I found that was mentioned in the algorithm information from the Porsche Patent document.
Enclose below some information I found after I sent Google this search text.
How crucial is the static offset function in a differential pressure sensor regarding the ash loading prediction of a gpf filter.
This is what came back.
The static offset function in a differential pressure (DP) sensor is crucial for the accurate prediction of ash loading in a gasoline particulate filter (GPF), as it directly affects the baseline pressure measurement. A correct offset ensures that the pressure readings used for load estimation are accurate and reliable.
Importance of the Static Offset Function
I believe that this offset control is not correct on these cars, because we are not seeing a zero reading with ignition on, engine off, and every one of our cars, show very little differential pressure when the Ash value is 100%, no soot present.
Also the fact we cannot carry out an adaption on these sensors make this situation even worse.
To back this up, one of our techs replaced the differential pressure sensor and the readings stayed the same and he couldn't do anything about it.
And to make matters worse I believe these sensors have been superseded, but they again, cannot be adapted when replaced.
Why Adaptation is Necessary
The adaptation/recalibration process is crucial because it sets the new sensor's "zero" or baseline value for the ECU, which then uses this as a reference point to accurately measure the soot accumulation in the GPF. Without this reset, the ECU might still operate based on the old sensor's values or a factory default, leading to incorrect calculations of the filter's saturation level and mistimed regeneration attempts.
For this reason, after installation, the new sensor must be programmed into the vehicle's ECU using a professional diagnostic tool.
It would be great if Porsche Technical in Reading could work with us on this problem, afterall we have spent considerable time and effort to get to this position, and this fault needs fixing before anymore owners loose faith in the Dealer network and Porsche, and these cars are sold into trade without any chance of being fixed correctly by the manufacturer.
Dave
Without prejudice
Well, just had another GPF report sent to me with the usual no soot values, oil ash measured at 100%, engine light on, DTC code P242F, and the differential pressure sensor reading at 4.65 hPa.
The Dealer says the car needs a new GPF filter because its blocked with Ash, and the cost to replace is 9K.
How many GPF reports showing this info, is it going to take Porsche and their Dealers to except that these filters are not blocked with Ash. If they carried out a simple back pressure check on the input sensor pipe to the sensor with a manometer this would show them that no pressure is present and it would check the sensors reading thats sent to the ECU.
Over this last week we have managed to get some testing information from two Porsche independent garages and one customer.
We asked these guys to specifically check the function of the differential pressure sensors.
The checks involved checking the sensor reading with ignition on, engine not running, and then a further checks with engine running.
They all found that when the ignition was on, engine not running, none of the cars showed a value around zero, pressure is created when the engine is running.
They then started the car and recorded the reading, they then switched off the engine, then switched on the ignition, and found the readings very similar to the running readings.
One of our techs couldn't believe what he was seeing, so he removed both pipes to the sensor and made sure they were clear, which they were.
He repeated the test and he had the same readings, with ignition on, engine not running a pressure value was found.
I mentioned on a previous post about a static offset function I found that was mentioned in the algorithm information from the Porsche Patent document.
Enclose below some information I found after I sent Google this search text.
How crucial is the static offset function in a differential pressure sensor regarding the ash loading prediction of a gpf filter.
This is what came back.
The static offset function in a differential pressure (DP) sensor is crucial for the accurate prediction of ash loading in a gasoline particulate filter (GPF), as it directly affects the baseline pressure measurement. A correct offset ensures that the pressure readings used for load estimation are accurate and reliable.
Importance of the Static Offset Function
- Establishes the True Zero Point: When a vehicle is stationary and the engine is off, the differential pressure across a clean GPF should ideally be zero. However, physical properties of the sensor, temperature changes, and electronic tolerances can cause a "technically induced zero offset". The static offset function provides a correction value to account for this inherent error, ensuring the actual baseline reading is correct.
- Ensures Accurate Soot Load Estimation: Ash accumulation permanently increases the filter's baseline pressure drop over time, a phenomenon that needs to be tracked and compensated for. Without a properly calibrated zero offset, the system cannot accurately distinguish between the pressure drop caused by temporary soot accumulation (which can be regenerated) and the permanent restriction from ash.
- Prevents Misdiagnosis and Damage:
- Overestimation of Load: An incorrect positive offset could lead the engine control unit (ECU) to believe the filter is heavily loaded when it is not, resulting in unnecessary and potentially frequent regeneration attempts, which wastes fuel and increases system wear.
- Underestimation of Load: A negative offset could lead to the underestimation of soot and ash levels, causing regeneration processes to not be initiated on time. This can result in excessive back pressure, potentially leading to a completely clogged filter that cannot be regenerated and could cause severe damage to the turbocharger and engine.
- Maintains Long-Term Accuracy: As the GPF ages and accumulates ash over its lifetime, the pressure drop characteristics change. The ability to perform a static offset correction (zeroing) during maintenance or as part of the vehicle's diagnostic strategy helps to maintain the accuracy of the pressure-based ash and soot estimation model over the vehicle's entire lifespan.
I believe that this offset control is not correct on these cars, because we are not seeing a zero reading with ignition on, engine off, and every one of our cars, show very little differential pressure when the Ash value is 100%, no soot present.
Also the fact we cannot carry out an adaption on these sensors make this situation even worse.
To back this up, one of our techs replaced the differential pressure sensor and the readings stayed the same and he couldn't do anything about it.
And to make matters worse I believe these sensors have been superseded, but they again, cannot be adapted when replaced.
Why Adaptation is Necessary
The adaptation/recalibration process is crucial because it sets the new sensor's "zero" or baseline value for the ECU, which then uses this as a reference point to accurately measure the soot accumulation in the GPF. Without this reset, the ECU might still operate based on the old sensor's values or a factory default, leading to incorrect calculations of the filter's saturation level and mistimed regeneration attempts.
For this reason, after installation, the new sensor must be programmed into the vehicle's ECU using a professional diagnostic tool.
It would be great if Porsche Technical in Reading could work with us on this problem, afterall we have spent considerable time and effort to get to this position, and this fault needs fixing before anymore owners loose faith in the Dealer network and Porsche, and these cars are sold into trade without any chance of being fixed correctly by the manufacturer.
Dave
With this situation with Porsche in the UK and Germany, these cars are doomed in the market place. Who will buy one with the light on the dash, and can you even get an MoT?
There must be a door to knock on in the UK office? ( yet to be found)
There must be a door to knock on in the UK office? ( yet to be found)
HI Dave
Without Prejudice
What you have worked out in your last post is exactly what is happening to all these cars and the dealers are mis-diagnosing the issue.
Owners are buying these cars in good faith only for the engine control fault light to come on after a short period of ownership and very low miles and then to be told by the OPC it's your GPF and it's £9000, oh and by the way it's not covered under your warranty....disgraceful!
Any owner who has paid to replace their GPF should write to Porsche and demand their money back and the owners who have sold their cars on the back of this mis-diagnosis should be compensated.
Dave has provided enough information on this issue to support any claim.
Porsche and the OPC's ought to be ashamed of how they continue to charge customers £9000, but they are so arrogant they won't be losing any sleep over it.
Anyone thinking of buying one of these cars....think very carefully, because if you do, you might be in for a whole lot of pain!!
Keep up the good work Dave.
Regards
Mark
Without Prejudice
What you have worked out in your last post is exactly what is happening to all these cars and the dealers are mis-diagnosing the issue.
Owners are buying these cars in good faith only for the engine control fault light to come on after a short period of ownership and very low miles and then to be told by the OPC it's your GPF and it's £9000, oh and by the way it's not covered under your warranty....disgraceful!
Any owner who has paid to replace their GPF should write to Porsche and demand their money back and the owners who have sold their cars on the back of this mis-diagnosis should be compensated.
Dave has provided enough information on this issue to support any claim.
Porsche and the OPC's ought to be ashamed of how they continue to charge customers £9000, but they are so arrogant they won't be losing any sleep over it.
Anyone thinking of buying one of these cars....think very carefully, because if you do, you might be in for a whole lot of pain!!
Keep up the good work Dave.
Regards
Mark
Hi Mark
Without prejudice
Thanks for your comments its much appreciated, we just need Porsche and their Dealers to listen to us and fix this issue.
We have asked our Dealers time and time again to do a back pressure check on these cars that are showing an ash value at 100%.
They have refused to do this simple check on everyone of our cars, if they did, it would show that there will be no pressure that supports a GPF filter being blocked at 100% with ASH.
The back pressure check would also confirm the current differential pressure sensor reading to be correct, or incorrect.
This is a simple check to carry out, but its the one check that has to be carried out.
Its part of a diagnostic procedure if you suspect the exhaust is possibly blocked.
I found this video on YouTube which shows how this check is carried out, sadly not on a Porsche, but that doesn't matter.
Dave
Without prejudice
Thanks for your comments its much appreciated, we just need Porsche and their Dealers to listen to us and fix this issue.
We have asked our Dealers time and time again to do a back pressure check on these cars that are showing an ash value at 100%.
They have refused to do this simple check on everyone of our cars, if they did, it would show that there will be no pressure that supports a GPF filter being blocked at 100% with ASH.
The back pressure check would also confirm the current differential pressure sensor reading to be correct, or incorrect.
This is a simple check to carry out, but its the one check that has to be carried out.
Its part of a diagnostic procedure if you suspect the exhaust is possibly blocked.
I found this video on YouTube which shows how this check is carried out, sadly not on a Porsche, but that doesn't matter.
Dave
Hi Dave
Without Prejudice
The OPC have always refused to carry out this simple back pressure check, do you think this is deliberate because it would highlight that the filter couldn't possibly be blocked and it would lead to a much bigger problem that would require a recall or software re-programming? It also means they are unable to blame the drivers and unable to rip off the owners to the tune of 9K!!
Regards
Mark
Without Prejudice
The OPC have always refused to carry out this simple back pressure check, do you think this is deliberate because it would highlight that the filter couldn't possibly be blocked and it would lead to a much bigger problem that would require a recall or software re-programming? It also means they are unable to blame the drivers and unable to rip off the owners to the tune of 9K!!
Regards
Mark
Hi Mark
Without prejudice
Yes it certainly looks that way, if you remember a back pressure check was never mentioned in the memo sent to the Dealers last March which detailed things to check before a regeneration was carried out.
They said that if all the checks for possible causes of oil ash load had been carried out, then a regeneration should be attempted to see if the ash load level would reset.
If it didn't then a modified OPF filter prt no 982 254 400AF should be fitted and re tested.
Regarding the re test after the modified filter was fitted we have found in all our cases that the oil ash load value comes back with an unacceptable % level, the only positive is the light is out.
We are now being told by the Dealers that this Ash level is acceptable and no further work will be carried out on these cars.
They also said that this filter had been modified to prevent this issue. And all vehicles with a production date later than December 2019 should already have the modified OPF fitted.
Its a shame that Porsche and their Dealers didn't apply this memo information to our cars, which were all registered before December 2019.
Instead they used the excuse for the failure being either the wrong engine oil was fitted or even driving style, or lack of Dealer service history.
And they even shut the door on the extended warranty coming to the rescue, saying that that the GPF is not in the exclusion section of the Warranty, but we class it as a filter, so its not covered.
Its now an excluded part in the new policy.
What makes a Manufacturer treat its customers this way, what makes Dealers go along with this miss diagnosis, and continue to try and charge for fitting a modified GPF that doesn't fix this fault.
A chap rang me the other day to say he is looking into taking his Dealer to court for misdiagnosing this fault on his car, he said he can prove they may have been negligent or in breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The law states that services must be carried out with reasonable care and skill.
He is struggling to even get his Dealer to even ring him back, after they diagnosed a faulty GPF filter at a cost of 9K, and his warning light is still on. He's had no contact for months even though he has left lots of messages and emails.
He has read all our information posted on this forum, and thinks he could have a strong case.
We will be looking in to this, and would certainly appreciate any feedback regarding the above.
I apologise for repeating myself on these forum posts, but my phone doesn't stop ringing, and we need this fault fixed.
Dave
Without prejudice
Yes it certainly looks that way, if you remember a back pressure check was never mentioned in the memo sent to the Dealers last March which detailed things to check before a regeneration was carried out.
They said that if all the checks for possible causes of oil ash load had been carried out, then a regeneration should be attempted to see if the ash load level would reset.
If it didn't then a modified OPF filter prt no 982 254 400AF should be fitted and re tested.
Regarding the re test after the modified filter was fitted we have found in all our cases that the oil ash load value comes back with an unacceptable % level, the only positive is the light is out.
We are now being told by the Dealers that this Ash level is acceptable and no further work will be carried out on these cars.
They also said that this filter had been modified to prevent this issue. And all vehicles with a production date later than December 2019 should already have the modified OPF fitted.
Its a shame that Porsche and their Dealers didn't apply this memo information to our cars, which were all registered before December 2019.
Instead they used the excuse for the failure being either the wrong engine oil was fitted or even driving style, or lack of Dealer service history.
And they even shut the door on the extended warranty coming to the rescue, saying that that the GPF is not in the exclusion section of the Warranty, but we class it as a filter, so its not covered.
Its now an excluded part in the new policy.
What makes a Manufacturer treat its customers this way, what makes Dealers go along with this miss diagnosis, and continue to try and charge for fitting a modified GPF that doesn't fix this fault.
A chap rang me the other day to say he is looking into taking his Dealer to court for misdiagnosing this fault on his car, he said he can prove they may have been negligent or in breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The law states that services must be carried out with reasonable care and skill.
He is struggling to even get his Dealer to even ring him back, after they diagnosed a faulty GPF filter at a cost of 9K, and his warning light is still on. He's had no contact for months even though he has left lots of messages and emails.
He has read all our information posted on this forum, and thinks he could have a strong case.
We will be looking in to this, and would certainly appreciate any feedback regarding the above.
I apologise for repeating myself on these forum posts, but my phone doesn't stop ringing, and we need this fault fixed.
Dave
Can we not call Porsches bluff on this one and request the GPF is sent off to the manufacturer or an independent for inspection and testing to confirm the filter is blocked.
If it comes back the filter is not full or blocked, then Porsche must replace the GPF at their own cost and rectify the underlying issues.
If we are confident this is not an issue with the GPF, the cost of an inspect isn’t going to be that much when compared to £9k for a new filter.
If it comes back the filter is not full or blocked, then Porsche must replace the GPF at their own cost and rectify the underlying issues.
If we are confident this is not an issue with the GPF, the cost of an inspect isn’t going to be that much when compared to £9k for a new filter.
When you take the car in and get told it is the filter and that means a £9,000 bill or drive it away, warrantee or not that filter, still in the car is still yours, not theirs.
As soon as they touch it at your request I think the ownership/bill balance will start to change. You will have accepted their terms?. Ask an indie to do this, same game, then you need to test somewhere (an unbiased organisation) and go to the OPC, who is a puppet to Porsche Reading and beyond.
Porsche do not have to recognise the test as valid, they will only take their own investigation results. I would doubt they will take your filter off you.
None of this, imho, will resolve unless Porsche say they will do it all. That is the blunt wall in front of this issue, Porsche itself.
A legal case could open a door, getting the issue public the same, but IMS etc did not exactly get much action from the factory, and it is now an issue for the specialist indie and left a scar on the face of the 996/986., great when OK, not so when it fails in the small numbers.
Porsche see this issue as a minor one, they have the money now; we see it as a major because it is unfair and poor engineering, maybe that it what Porsche has become?
Sorry to be so negative, but can anyone else see a way forward.
As soon as they touch it at your request I think the ownership/bill balance will start to change. You will have accepted their terms?. Ask an indie to do this, same game, then you need to test somewhere (an unbiased organisation) and go to the OPC, who is a puppet to Porsche Reading and beyond.
Porsche do not have to recognise the test as valid, they will only take their own investigation results. I would doubt they will take your filter off you.
None of this, imho, will resolve unless Porsche say they will do it all. That is the blunt wall in front of this issue, Porsche itself.
A legal case could open a door, getting the issue public the same, but IMS etc did not exactly get much action from the factory, and it is now an issue for the specialist indie and left a scar on the face of the 996/986., great when OK, not so when it fails in the small numbers.
Porsche see this issue as a minor one, they have the money now; we see it as a major because it is unfair and poor engineering, maybe that it what Porsche has become?
Sorry to be so negative, but can anyone else see a way forward.
Sadly, even if you were able to take a "blocked" filter for an independent test, it would not trigger a recall. Mandatory recalls only happen with safety related issues. Manufacturers are diligent about monitoring safety features because the consequences of litigation where death or injury is found to be the result of a manufacturing or design fault. If discovered, failing to meet emissions standards will also trigger recalls but, in the 718 GPF case, there is no evidence of emissions cheating or excess emissions due to the fault.
I can hear that paragraph above in a tech meeting within Porsche.
could an indie electronic specialist devise an over ride black box I wonder?
could an indie electronic specialist devise an over ride black box I wonder?
Hi Guys
Without prejudice
We are trying to get our Dealers to carry out a back pressure check on one of our faulty cars to back up their diagnosis.
The fact that they continue ignoring our requests for this back pressure check suggests they are well aware there is no pressure, but are following a technical instruction which doesn't contain this simple check.
I believe that this was the case way back in 2019, when somebody made the desision to replace the GPF filter for a modified part as mentioned in the internal memo.
This part was fitted in the belief that it would fix the fault code P242F ash loading, the same fault we have now.
So any customers that had this fault durring the warranty period were dealt with on a case by case basis.
We then get into 2023 and Mark's first post on the 29th of May, and off we go, trying to understand what was happening.
On the 29th of January last year we had 29 thousand views on this subject, we now have 128 thousand views.
Since then we have gathered enough information to say that these filters are not blocked with ash or soot.
Its taken alot of time confirming after the fitting of these modified GPF filters that these filters are not the cause of this problem.
Our biggest obstacle has always been the test to confirm a blocked filter.
We have carried out this test on quite a few cars that have been in Porsche independents and normal garages.
The outcome has always been the same, no pressure recorded.
What would make a real difference is, if a Dealer carried out the test on a car with this fault code, that they were currently dealing with.
I would encourage any owner with a 718 car with this fault reported, to insist that the Dealer carries out this simple back pressure check, even if the have to pay for the test.
The cost should not be more than an hours labour, if the pressure is measured from the input pipe (larger diameter pipe) to the differential pressure sensor using a manometer.
The owner needs to be present when the test is carried out, and a photo is taken showing the pressure recorded.
The Dealer can then send this info to Porsche Reading Technical for them to send it to Germany.
Sounds like we are just starting our investigations on this subject, but unfortunately we are not, we will have on the 29th May, 3 years invested in this issue.
Let's get these cars into the Dealers and get this check carried out, the cost of this check is cheaper than paying 9K for a new filter thats not required. And is certainly better than selling our cars because our Dealers will not do the test.
Everybody that have contacted me about this issue, have loved their cars and never thought they would ever have to sell their cars, especially when Porsche said the petrol 718 cars would be going for future electric versions.
Let's put a stop to this.
Dave
Without prejudice
We are trying to get our Dealers to carry out a back pressure check on one of our faulty cars to back up their diagnosis.
The fact that they continue ignoring our requests for this back pressure check suggests they are well aware there is no pressure, but are following a technical instruction which doesn't contain this simple check.
I believe that this was the case way back in 2019, when somebody made the desision to replace the GPF filter for a modified part as mentioned in the internal memo.
This part was fitted in the belief that it would fix the fault code P242F ash loading, the same fault we have now.
So any customers that had this fault durring the warranty period were dealt with on a case by case basis.
We then get into 2023 and Mark's first post on the 29th of May, and off we go, trying to understand what was happening.
On the 29th of January last year we had 29 thousand views on this subject, we now have 128 thousand views.
Since then we have gathered enough information to say that these filters are not blocked with ash or soot.
Its taken alot of time confirming after the fitting of these modified GPF filters that these filters are not the cause of this problem.
Our biggest obstacle has always been the test to confirm a blocked filter.
We have carried out this test on quite a few cars that have been in Porsche independents and normal garages.
The outcome has always been the same, no pressure recorded.
What would make a real difference is, if a Dealer carried out the test on a car with this fault code, that they were currently dealing with.
I would encourage any owner with a 718 car with this fault reported, to insist that the Dealer carries out this simple back pressure check, even if the have to pay for the test.
The cost should not be more than an hours labour, if the pressure is measured from the input pipe (larger diameter pipe) to the differential pressure sensor using a manometer.
The owner needs to be present when the test is carried out, and a photo is taken showing the pressure recorded.
The Dealer can then send this info to Porsche Reading Technical for them to send it to Germany.
Sounds like we are just starting our investigations on this subject, but unfortunately we are not, we will have on the 29th May, 3 years invested in this issue.
Let's get these cars into the Dealers and get this check carried out, the cost of this check is cheaper than paying 9K for a new filter thats not required. And is certainly better than selling our cars because our Dealers will not do the test.
Everybody that have contacted me about this issue, have loved their cars and never thought they would ever have to sell their cars, especially when Porsche said the petrol 718 cars would be going for future electric versions.
Let's put a stop to this.
Dave
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
