Greenman986S
PCGB Member
Have you actually read the thread?
The statement doesn't devalue the cars - but Porsche's arrogance does
Cayman 718 GPF Failure
- Thread starter Wrightrubber
- Start date
The statement doesn't devalue the cars - but Porsche's arrogance does
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
All touring spec models come with a flat 4 2.0.
Hi 718touring,
Please forgive my ignorance, its a 2.0 engine, may I ask when did you have your GPF replaced, and what year was your car.
Kind regards
Dave
Please forgive my ignorance, its a 2.0 engine, may I ask when did you have your GPF replaced, and what year was your car.
Kind regards
Dave
it’s a 2019 registered October 2019 (2020 model year) and the gpf is the original one.
Last edited:
My car was first registered on 30 September 2019, and after just 16 miles it was already showing an ash/oil load reading of 1.96%. Between January and April this year, that figure increased dramatically from 73.73% to 100%, triggering the Engine Management Light (EML). When I approached the dealer, I was told the issue was not covered under warranty, and I am now involved in lengthy discussions with both the OPC and Porsche GB.
Greenman986S's comments are absolutely spot on. When I purchased what had been a lifelong dream car, I never expected it to turn into a nightmare with the prospect of a £10,000 bill. Porsche's response to what appears to be a manufacturing defect is truly baffling and extremely disappointing.
I hope you are a lucky one that doesn't get affected by this problem, but that in its own right shows the problem is with Porsche that we are relying on luck. My advice if you haven't already is get the GPF fill level checked.
Kind Regards
tony
What was the mileage at 73% and at 100%
At 73.73%, the mileage was 38,725 miles, and at 100% it was 39,712 miles. This is a relatively low mileage increase, largely because the OPC had possession of the vehicle for 24 days due to a headlight issue, the figure increased from 73.73% to 82.75% while the car was with the dealer. At the time, I was completely unaware of this change, as the Engine Management Light (EML) had not yet illuminated.
Last edited:
I have just looked up and yours is Euro 6 ag. Mine is Euro 6 dg
It would be extremely helpful if those owners of 718 4 cylinder cars who have not seen the Engine Control Fault warning and believe that their cars do not exhibit the fault could report the data for their measured soot and oil ash percentage values and the mileage that their cars have covered? Without the data, I would respectfully suggest that you may have your head in the sand, without the evidence to support your claim?
The iCarsoft diagnostic tool is favoured by many owners to provide access to all this data, plus the means of carrying out numerous routine servicing resets. We purchased an iCarsoft POR V2.0 from iCarsoft UK and the current price is about £140 (we have no connection with iCarsoft, other than being a satisfied customer.). The tool is very easy to use.
Our 2021 car has now covered 45K miles and for the last 30K miles, the oil ash load has hovered between 90 and 100%, with absolutely no ill effects. The warning light has been on and off at least 6 times and we juggle the MOT to coincide with when the light is off!
If your car has covered a reasonable mileage (in the order of 25-30K miles) and has low measured soot and oil ash load values, then this may provide an important clue to resolving the fault, if we can determine what is different about your car?
The iCarsoft diagnostic tool is favoured by many owners to provide access to all this data, plus the means of carrying out numerous routine servicing resets. We purchased an iCarsoft POR V2.0 from iCarsoft UK and the current price is about £140 (we have no connection with iCarsoft, other than being a satisfied customer.). The tool is very easy to use.
Our 2021 car has now covered 45K miles and for the last 30K miles, the oil ash load has hovered between 90 and 100%, with absolutely no ill effects. The warning light has been on and off at least 6 times and we juggle the MOT to coincide with when the light is off!
If your car has covered a reasonable mileage (in the order of 25-30K miles) and has low measured soot and oil ash load values, then this may provide an important clue to resolving the fault, if we can determine what is different about your car?
I did ask Dave the opposite of this. what are the actual build dates (not registration dates) of the cars affected how many affected, mileage, manual or pdk.
He didn’t want to disclose that info.
To date I’ve had no issues with my car and I don’t feel the need to check for issues that apparently are not there.
I just drive them and deal with it if it occurs, I’m certainly not going to worry about it.
The good thing is if you ever do need help and information on this defect then its all listed on this thread thanks to the work of Dave and others
Fingers crossed you never need it.
Thank you Sharon.
So to be clear, this is an ECU fault (rather than a sensor) that cannot be rectified independently, as things stand? And notwithstanding the data for faults on cars around 2019/2020, all 718's til production stopped (excluding the 4.0's) are at risk?
Tim,
Yes, all the evidence would indicate a programming issue with the ECU. And currently we have no means of permanently carrying out an adaptation. The fault can be temporarily deleted using various proprietary diagnostic tools (which is handy to know if your MOT is pending), but the high oil ash load value reappears within about 300 miles.
Similar differential pressure sensors are fitted to many VW Group vehicles and are notoriously unreliable. However, there is no evidence to suggest that they have any bearing on the fault. We changed ours, just in case, and it made no difference.
Be warned that the differential pressure sensor is a pig to change on a Boxster. It is totally hidden behind the bulkhead, in front of the intercooler. It can just about be reached, with the fingertips, but not seen, with the front engine cover removed.
Yes, all the evidence would indicate a programming issue with the ECU. And currently we have no means of permanently carrying out an adaptation. The fault can be temporarily deleted using various proprietary diagnostic tools (which is handy to know if your MOT is pending), but the high oil ash load value reappears within about 300 miles.
Similar differential pressure sensors are fitted to many VW Group vehicles and are notoriously unreliable. However, there is no evidence to suggest that they have any bearing on the fault. We changed ours, just in case, and it made no difference.
Be warned that the differential pressure sensor is a pig to change on a Boxster. It is totally hidden behind the bulkhead, in front of the intercooler. It can just about be reached, with the fingertips, but not seen, with the front engine cover removed.
If you're looking at build dates for data then you'd be better looking at the VIN. I have suspected for quite some time that there may be a batch of ECUs that have incorrect coding on the ECU. If Dave can collate the earliest VIN to the latest VIN with this issue if may give those with VINs in between a bit of a heads-up.
Dan
Dan
Thanks again Sharon! That's really helpful
I suspect the reluctance is many fold, maybe such an action will fully isolate the work done here as Porsche bolt its doors tight.
secondly, the cars will be tarred by the same brush, much like IMS bearings etc for 986.
Bore scores on 997 and so on.
Porsche have dropped mistakes in the last decades, but not all models have the issues.
The idea of a batch of ecu having bad software is interesting, but wouldn’t Porsche offer this as a solution compared to the filter change?
This excellent thread shows clearly Porsche have no interest of fixing this problem and I think that because they have no solution themselves!
Their attitude is weak and an insult, an attitude maybe felt with other Porsche products?
worse of all there is no fix anywhere. (Is there, yet?)
secondly, the cars will be tarred by the same brush, much like IMS bearings etc for 986.
Bore scores on 997 and so on.
Porsche have dropped mistakes in the last decades, but not all models have the issues.
The idea of a batch of ecu having bad software is interesting, but wouldn’t Porsche offer this as a solution compared to the filter change?
This excellent thread shows clearly Porsche have no interest of fixing this problem and I think that because they have no solution themselves!
Their attitude is weak and an insult, an attitude maybe felt with other Porsche products?
worse of all there is no fix anywhere. (Is there, yet?)
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
