Cayman 718 GPF Failure

[patersont718t]

I have been reading what has been happening over the last 3 years and a phone call at this stage is irrelevant to me.
thank you for your kind offer.

what I am wanting is it posted in here the true extent of the issue, ie as posted above how many cars affected and build dates.

That data should be a minimum seeing as we have quite a lengthy debate, this will be the 1040th post on the issue.

granted some are have issues a bit like the early days of dpf’s and all I’m seeing at the moment is the lack of real car numbers affected by this data.

this whole issue smacked of being blown out of proportion for the few affected thereby taring all as potentially the same?

if it wasn’t for this forum and Dave’s posts I wouldn’t have known about the GPF and how to fight the £9700 charge, but you have fair point, but asking owners to pay up to £9,700 for a repair that many believe stems from a manufacturing defect simply isn’t right. What’s even more frustrating is Porsche’s handling of the situation. In my view, it’s Porsche’s continued denial that there’s a wider issue that’s keeping this story alive. As more cars develop the same apparent defect, the number of affected owners will only continue to grow, making it increasingly difficult to dismiss as isolated cases.

If Porsche simply do the right thing the issue goes away.

 

[Motorhead]

^^^ This exactly.

Thankfully Dale has been fortunate to date that he hasn’t been affected by this problem, unlike those - many of whom are likely to be outside the Club and probably aren’t aware of this post - who have have been asked to fork-out an eye-watering sum by their dealers to get their car back on the road after what Dave has shown to be an incorrect diagnosis.

I speak as someone who runs an 987.2 CS and so thankfully I’m not affected by this issue, but in my view even one misdiagnosed case is one too many!

Jeff

Edit: For context I looked at How Many Left to check how many 2.0L 718 Caymans were newly registered. Dave will be able to tell us the period we’re looking at for the failures he’s seen, but if we just take the three years 2019, 2020 and 2021 there were 83 Base cars and 48 T cars registered, although there will be a few more Base cars which were registered from September 2018 when 69 cars were registered in that year. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of those numbers and of course I’m sure that there will be a similar number of Boxsters, but the numbers aren’t huge.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Jeff and Tony,

Thanks for your thoughts on this subject, we always knew that the more we pushed in trying to work out this problem, their would be consequential damage to the image of these cars.

Up until we got sight of the Porsche internal memo, we had no idea on how many cars could be affected by this issue, but we learnt that two major defects on these cars was standing out.

The first was how the car reports the ash % content, and the second was there was no way on these cars to carry out any adaptation of the differential pressure sensor or the adaptation of a GPF filter.

These adaptations are fundamental to an emission controlled vehicle, and without them their would be a problem eventually.

We now have the knowledge to look at these cars and make a reasonable prediction on any car that trouble could be ahead.

Dale, wants to know how many cars have been affected we don't, we just need Porsche to own up to this fault.

The internal memo says it all.

Worldwide, and model year 2018/2019

It says if the engine light comes on, and the DTC code P242F is present your journey begins.

What the memo doesn't say is who pays for the checks and replacement of the modified GPF.

Enclose their memo again for your attention again, they need to tell us how many cars are affected, they caused this problem we didn't.

We naturally assumed that a modified filter brought out to fix this emission control fault would be covered by the manufacturer, when they started paying we appreciated it, they have now stopped.

Thats why we are repeating ourselves all the time, to convince them to do the right thing.


Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Well, we've had a 2021 Boxster 718 2.0's backpressure checked with a manometer today, the car has done 43K.

Its been running around for more than year with the warning light coming on, and off.
The owner has been checking the ash reading on his car using his own diagnostic tester.

He carried out this backpressure check today with his ash load at 100%, and the usual not soot present.

Enclose a photo of his dashboard warning light on and message, also a photo showing no soot present, and another photo showing the measured 100% reading.

And the final photo showing the pressure reading taken from his manometer connected to the differential pressure input pipe to the sensor.

IT READS 0.028 KPA, IF YOU CONVERT TO HPA YOU GET 0.28 HPA, AND CONVERTED TO PSI YOU GET 0.00406105567.

SOD ALL PRESSURE AGAIN.

So this is another 718 model thats had a backpressure check carried out and there is no pressure, but its not a 2019 model, its a 2021 model.

This is why are Dealers are refusing to carry out this back pressure check, because if they did they would see that no pressure is in the GPF.

So no pressure, means no need to replace the GPF, if the exhaust tail pipes have no signs of soot, then the GPF is ok.

Unfortunately I have never been able to get Dealers or Porsche independents to do these checks because of a fear that any involvement with ourselves could possibly jeopardise their relationship with Porsche.

So we are getting our owners to carry out these backpressure checks.

With have sufficient evidence now that a simple backpressure check would stop the fittment of these modified GPF filters.

We will push on

Dave

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi its me again,

Enclose below is a YouTube video showing why its so important to check the differential pressure sensor readings on a vehicle with a suspected blocked filter.

Sorry its a diesel car, but you can see how easy the backpressure can be checked.

This guy is brilliant and he explains this fault in a way thats easily understood.

Dave

 

[Holy_Joe]

Is 2021 the youngest car impacted?

I think earlier in the thread it was mentioned there was a 911 model with a similar 'fault' - any other models impacted?

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Holy_Joe
If I remember correctly Dave has dealt with 2x 2019 911 (991.2) cars with blocked filters, as you probably know these cars have 2x GPF filters, the first car had one filter replaced under warranty, but I believe the ash is coming back and the second car had both filters replaced, f.o.c, because they failed shortly after purchase.
Looking back I think the youngest car is a 2023 2.0ltr Cayman with 17K on the clock with over 50% ash when it was checked.
I started this thread 3 years ago and it was extremely difficult to deal with Porsche GB and the OPC to sort my car out and it was only the intervention of Dave that they agreed to replace the filter f.o.c.
Not sure if this helps with your question.
Regards
Mark

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Morning Guys & Girls,

Just quick update, we are still struggling with two of our Dealers that are refusing to do a back pressure check on our cars.
And let's not forget we have asked the very same question on every one of our faulty cars that the Dealers said required a new filter because its blocked with 100% Ash, and its never been done.

They have been told by Porsche they are not allowed to do it.

I suggest going forward that we be more persistent with this request and put it in writing to the Dealer, you could use these words, if it helps.

Iam formally requesting that the service department perform a physical exhaust back-pressure test to validate the required replacement of the GPF. Your department's refusal to perform this basic diagnostic step, while simultaneously ignoring live differential pressure sensor data showing zero restriction, constitutes a failure to properly diagnose the vehicle.

If Porsche maintains that the filter is physically blocked with ash, please provide the measured physical back-pressure readings in hPa / mbar to justify the recommended £9,000 repair. Without physical data, being given, I will consider this an unverified repair recommendation by yourselves.

We are considering taking possible action against Dealers who refuse this request, its not an unreasonable request bearing in mind all the data we have on these cars. And all the checks we have done on cars fitted with the modified filter and the subsequent returning ash values, and the high cost of replacing a GPF filter thats definitely not required.

We have currently 187K views on this forum on this subject which confirms that people are very interested in our progress going forward.

Thank you all

Dave

 

[DavidUK]

I've not read the full thread, apologies, but if I had this issue on a car under warranty I'd be quickly issuing proceedings.
To a reasonable person (most judges are) it's obvious this should be covered and it is not an "air filter", that's universally understood to be a filter for incoming fresh air.
Has anybody gone this far yet? I do hope nobody has accepted a contribution and paid toward the remedy.
Having just won a lengthy high value legal battle (not against Porsche) I know an excellent barrister. All my costs over 2 1/2 years, c£50k, were paid by my household insurance legal protection cover.

 

[Billybod]

I've not read the full thread, apologies, but if I had this issue on a car under warranty I'd be quickly issuing proceedings.
To a reasonable person (most judges are) it's obvious this should be covered and it is not an "air filter", that's universally understood to be a filter for incoming fresh air.
Has anybody gone this far yet? I do hope nobody has accepted a contribution and paid toward the remedy.
Having just won a lengthy high value legal battle (not against Porsche) I know an excellent barrister. All my costs over 2 1/2 years, c£50k, were paid by my household insurance legal protection cover.

My understanding of household cover is that they will only proceed if there’s more than a 50% chance of winning and then they choose the legal adviser, not the policyholder.
Regards
Bill

 

[Wrightrubber]

I've not read the full thread, apologies, but if I had this issue on a car under warranty I'd be quickly issuing proceedings.
To a reasonable person (most judges are) it's obvious this should be covered and it is not an "air filter", that's universally understood to be a filter for incoming fresh air.
Has anybody gone this far yet? I do hope nobody has accepted a contribution and paid toward the remedy.
Having just won a lengthy high value legal battle (not against Porsche) I know an excellent barrister. All my costs over 2 1/2 years, c£50k, were paid by my household insurance legal protection cover.

Hi David,
You are quite right this should be covered under warranty, the GPF is incorporated into the CAT so you can't replace just the GPF, hence the high cost to replace it.
I had extended warranty and Porsche said it was not covered because it was classed as a filter and it wasn't expressly excluded in the warranty list of items not covered.
I argued the case, as you have stated, I said that a reasonable person would take a wear and tear filter to be an oil, air or pollen filter,but Porsche were having none of it, I said if the GPF was classed the same as the other filters why isn't it checked and replaced like the others at service intervals, they just refused to give a reasonable and justifiable answer, and guess what??? the wording in the extended warranty was changed to now include the GPF in the list of exclude items.........shocking!!!
The thing is Porsche knew of this problem from very early on and have taken the stance of not dealing with it and getting the customer to pay!!

Regards
Mark

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Mark, DavidUK, and Billybod,

Yes, if you think about whats happened with the extended warranty miss direction, Porsche and their Dealers should be embarrassed with what they have done.

They have treated their customers with this fault appallingly, and they have made every attempt to cover up this manufacturing defect from the start.

Wrong engine oil, not been serviced correctly, and finally your driving style.

And even when the internal memo came out last March, confirming that this exact same fault was present durring the first year of sales, and they had even brought out a modified GPF filter to prevent this issue happening again, they still carried on with this denial.

And a statement that all vehicles with a production date later than December 2019 should already have the modified filter fitted, makes matters even worse.

And they are continuing to lie to their customers in an attempt to make them pay for a GPF that never need replacement in the first place.

The lack of back pressure when the software is saying the oil ash level is at 100%, and their refusal to do a simple backpressure check says it all.

How long is this going to carry on, and how many customers are going to be caught up in this miss diagnosis of an emission control fault, the ash is not real, and never was.

And the fact they have paid for 14 modified GPF filters to be fitted on some of our faulty cars after we intervined, says it all, how can they say now they are not paying, they can't.

Dave

 

[911hillclimber]

I'm sure I've said it before, but the cars with OPC replaced filters (the 2019-on design) that the owner may have paid £9K for or got it free presumably fails with the dash light on.

That repair/solution will have a warrantee I guess, so what happens then?

Another filter of the same design is the only option or does the OPC refuse to deal with the car unless the owner pays?
I presume the OPC/Porsche can refuse to work on the car?

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Adrian

If you would like to ring me tomorrow in the morning, I can update you on what needs to be done.
My number is 07769 590119
Kind regards
Dave

 

[DavidUK]

NB. I see no way of quoting a post, as on other forums, so I've copied and pasted your post. Perhaps someone could advise how to quote?

Anyhow, you are correct in the 51% minimum chance of success but here's the trick. My insurer's legal protection agent would have been quite happy to instruct one of their panel solicitors at a fixed fee of £1,400 for up to 100 hours work.
Yes, that's £14/hr for their legal "expert" to no doubt say the chance of success is less than 50%. That might take a few hours so the £1,400 is actually a nice little earner between "pals."

Fortunately most policies, including mine, allow the customer to choose their own solicitor who is then instructed by the insurer's agent. My chosen solicitor gave the chance of success as 85% and off we went.

 

[DavidUK]

Coincidentally I was in a BMW indy today, having a chat with a technician about BMW main dealer servicing prices. He had a distraught lady bring her car to him as a BMW dealer had quoted £6,000 to replace a dead GPF.
The tech noticed the GPF clamp was done up tight but there wasn't the usual amount of thread showing.
He undid the clamp and found the DPF wasn't inserted correctly and was misaligned hence the clamp not being able to close fully around the fitment and the resultant leak. He corrected the GPF positioning, solved the issue, giving the cat another eight lives, and charged the customer £70.
I think she'll be going back there for her next service?

I've had similar issues with OPCs over the years, and also an extended warranty issue in 2019. I'd extended my warranty, at the end of the original warranty 2014-2017, for another two years to 2019. Took the car back to the same OPC in 2019 to extend again (you had to have the check done again back then) and the car failed as it had Zurnsport grilles fitted.
BUT... they were also fitted in 2017 when the same OPC did the same check. PGB got involved and said the OPC had made a mistake in 2017 allowing the extension. due to aftermarket parts being fitted.
They said the warranty would have covered me "at the discretion of the OPC" but I didn't accept this.
As the exteded warranty is an insurance product I argued it was void from outset as this newly introduced condition hadn't been there when I took it out. The OPC refunded the full amount I'd paid in 2017, £1,100 iirc.

 

[Orv987]

Hi Adrian

If you would like to ring me tomorrow in the morning, I can update you on what needs to be done.
My number is 07769 590119
Kind regards
Dave

Hi Dave, thanks for speaking earlier and apologies that the post I wrote yesterday I managed to delete. Had my warning light come on last week on my 2019 Boxster still under Porsche warranty Not knowing anything about the GPF fault I assume this is the problem with my car. Good news is that I am told it will be a warranty repair. I will update the thread once the work is done. A big thank you to Dave for explaining everything and everyone else who has contributed to it. Cheers Adrian.