Cayman 718 GPF Failure
- Thread starter Wrightrubber
- Start date
Wrightrubber
PCGB Member
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
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
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
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
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.
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
PCGB Member
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
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
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
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?
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hi
Have read this with interest as I'm thinking of getting a 718 Cayman. Does the GPF issue potentially affect only 2.0/2.5 late 2018/19/20 models? If the car is outside a Porsche Warranty, with a GPF fault, is there a simpler fix than full replacement? - replace the sensor, run a regeneration, do a cat delete or something else?
Thanks!
Have read this with interest as I'm thinking of getting a 718 Cayman. Does the GPF issue potentially affect only 2.0/2.5 late 2018/19/20 models? If the car is outside a Porsche Warranty, with a GPF fault, is there a simpler fix than full replacement? - replace the sensor, run a regeneration, do a cat delete or something else?
Thanks!
Over the years, David has collected a considerable amount of information and evidence concerning the Engine Control Fault warning, that appears on the multi-function display on many 4 cylinder 718 cars and a number of other models as well. Whilst the fault code is P242F - ash load too high - this is where the misdiagnosis and the misunderstanding of the fault arises.
There is NO evidence that any of the GPF units are blocked with ash. Indeed, the cars with continue to perform entirely normally. There is no evidence to suggest that there is ANY problem with the GPF. All the evidence suggests that the fault warning is a consequence of an error in the algorithm in the ECU programme, producing erroneous data. Unfortunately, Porsche are refusing to even discuss the evidence that David has gathered, let alone endeavour to correct the fault in the programme.
The practical consequences of the Engine Control Fault warning light is that this would result in an MOT failure.
To date, we have been unable to find a means of adaptation or permanently deleting the fault using proprietary diagnostic testing equipment.
There is no evidence to suggest that any 718 4 cylinder cars fitted with a GPF are immune from the Engine Control Fault warning for non-existent high ash load. A case of not if, but when.
In the meantime, please support David in his battle to persuade Porsche to investigate and correct the manufacturing fault with their cars.
There is NO evidence that any of the GPF units are blocked with ash. Indeed, the cars with continue to perform entirely normally. There is no evidence to suggest that there is ANY problem with the GPF. All the evidence suggests that the fault warning is a consequence of an error in the algorithm in the ECU programme, producing erroneous data. Unfortunately, Porsche are refusing to even discuss the evidence that David has gathered, let alone endeavour to correct the fault in the programme.
The practical consequences of the Engine Control Fault warning light is that this would result in an MOT failure.
To date, we have been unable to find a means of adaptation or permanently deleting the fault using proprietary diagnostic testing equipment.
There is no evidence to suggest that any 718 4 cylinder cars fitted with a GPF are immune from the Engine Control Fault warning for non-existent high ash load. A case of not if, but when.
In the meantime, please support David in his battle to persuade Porsche to investigate and correct the manufacturing fault with their cars.
718touring
New member
There is no evidence to suggest that any 718 4 cylinder cars fitted with a GPF are immune from the Engine Control Fault warning for non-existent high ash load. A case of not if, but when.
Wow, that is a very sweeping speculative statement. Let’s tar them all with the same brush and destroy the values of these amazing cars.
Wow, that is a very sweeping speculative statement. Let’s tar them all with the same brush and destroy the values of these amazing cars.
Greenman986S
PCGB Member
Have you actually read the thread?
The statement doesn't devalue the cars - but Porsche's arrogance does
718touring
New member
Yes I have and this issue which has affected around 2 dozen cars if that doesn’t warrant saying all may possibly be affected.
cars in general have faults that manufacturers are getting to grips with ie wet belts that destroy engines when they degrade.
im all far trying to get manufacturers to address their shortcomings but to tar all GPF cayman/boxsters is getting a bit silly.
Greenman986S
PCGB Member
If they all (in the affected build run) run the same hardware and software....why wouldn't they all be at the same risk...
Hi 718touring,
Could I ask what engine is in your 718 touring.
Dave
Could I ask what engine is in your 718 touring.
Dave
718touring
New member
All touring spec models come with a flat 4 2.0.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
