Cayman 718 GPF Failure

[Hyla75]

Cyclemotor1958

If I may, the problem you face is not a technical or engineering one, but one of approach and persuasion. You have already assembled a thorough technical case that shows the official Porsche solution does not solve the problem and merely leaves their customers with an unnecesary £8-9k bill to pay. You dont need more technical evidence. Rather, you need to consider how to cut through the layers of inertia and defensiveness of a modern corporate bureaucracy.

Large companies like car manufaturers employ public facing non-technical interfaces in order to 'manage' away as many issues as they can. Think of your typical call centre for a company like BT. These public-facing folks are non-technical, and are in place principally to deflect and defend the company from enquiries and issues that will cost them money to engage with. The OPC network is used by Porsche in a similar fashion; they are staffed in the main by non-technical folks who do not come from engineering backgrounds and are severely limited in what they can and cant do. They're like the person in the call centre you speak to about your internet issues. They can follow scripts and carefully prescribed paths, but are not allowed to deviate from those. No amount of technical IT knowledge about broadband or routers or fibre provision etc is going to get you any further with these folks.

You are in the equivalent position with Porsche. You are trying to get the people at OPCs to go off-script and engage with the technical issues you've identified (eg doing a back-pressure check); they simply aren't going to do that. You need to focus on finding a way to circumvent the OPC and get your issue in front of someone who has the power to address it. Personal contacts with key individuals can do this, as can the spotlight of wider publicity.

Like many others, I applaud your incredible efforts to get to the bottom of this issue. But unfortunately, presenting more technical evidence to the people at OPCs isn't going to move the needle on this. You need to cut through to the folks at Porsche corporate with the power to do something.

Is there anyone amongst the owners you have helped who has experience of large corporates who would be prepared to help you with this?

 

[911hillclimber]

I think the above is a good summary of the balance of this situation today.

Finding the Dept or individual who has both the power AND the inclination to sort it is quite a task, and is the defense tactic in play here.

You would hope that this Club might be in a good position esp with Porsche GB, but this seems a dead-end. (?)
This makes it harder still.
Finding the person in Porsche GB must be the next step?

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys

If you remember I put our case to Porsche Stuttgart who passed me back to Porsche GB with a case number.

After many attempts trying to speak to them quoting my case number, they never got back to me.

Its obvious that our information collected over the last 3.5 years, contradicts and challenges their diagnostic protocol.

But our requests to do a backpressure check on these faulty cars is not unreasonable, and their refusal is nothing but an admission that if they did this check it would finally end this miss diagnosis disaster.

Your right regarding the need for more technical information, we don't need any more.

The only thing we are looking into is the adaptation of this ash % value using other diagnostic scanners.

The fact we can do this is a game changer, it confirms a software adjustment can temporary get rid of this software ash, that they insist is real.

I suggest we concentrate on the Dealer experience when this fault becomes a problem.

Afterall is seems the Dealers are being asked not to correctly diagnose this problem even though it costs the owner or Porsche to replace a GPF thats perfectly serviceable.

We will continue to help anyone who contacts us regarding this ash issue, with advice, and guidance, and you never know we might come across something that might put some more weight behind our campaign.

Fingers crossed

Dave

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Dave
If you remember, I contacted Porsche Germany when I was getting no help from Porsche GB.
Germany said because I had purchased the car in the UK, they referred me back to Porsche GB, so Germany were just as unhelpful as GB.
I asked for a meeting with someone from the technical team at Reading, a 5 hour round trip for me, only to be told they wouldn't meet with me because they were not customer facing!! They clearly don't want to engage and the club have not helped to facilitate this, which is disappointing!

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Mark

Wow, that seems a very along time ago, If I remember I was going to go with you, but sadly they said no.

I wonder if the Club could arrange with Porsche Technical to look at one of our faulty cars at their Reading workshop and carry out a backpressure check, in their presence.

This would finally prove to them that these modified GPF filters are not required.

Some good news, from the owner of the Boxster 718 that replaced his faulty differential pressure sensor and then adaptated his ash % value to zero.

He used another OBD2 diagnostic scan tool, and we are testing the results, I purchased one the other day, just in case.

He sent me a WhatsApp yesterday, hes touring round Europe and has just travelled 1500 miles, the cars running great and no warning lights on.

He will be checking the ash value at the weekend and will let us know the results.

This is brilliant news, our other three cars that had the ash adaptation done, using diagnostic scan tools, VCDS, Autel and Autologic all managed to get to around 500 miles before the P242F ash warning light came back on at 100%.

The Porsche PWIS diagnostic tester connected to the cars DME, cannot carry out this reset. Because the adaptation of the differential pressure sensor and the GPF are not in the repair and maintenance section.

Can't wait to see my friends ash reading.

Fingers crossed

Dave

 

[911hillclimber]

In the end, is finding a device that will re-set the car the solution?
Owners who are happy to plug-in and correct and Indie specialists alike would have the fix, and Fortress Porsche (in all it's guises) can go forth and sell more hi-tech cars.

Suppose such a re-set could be part of the Service schedule at an Indie, or something done by the owner pre MoT, or simply when the light comes on.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Graham,

Yes we have already proven that alternative OBD2 scan tools can perform an Ash reset, (adaptation) that lowers the software ash reading which turns off the warning light and message.

This is done without the need to regenerate the GPF filter, which is what the Dealers have been doing for years.

We know from owner information that multiple regenerations have been carried out in there attempts to zero the ash.

Which then results in having to change the engine oil and filter.

This regeneration method to re set ash is mentioned in the internal Porsche memo, after all the other checks have been done.

So the cost of buying a suitable scanner tool is alot less than the Dealers charge to read the code P242F and tell our owners they need to find 9.5K to fit a GPF thats not blocked.

We will also be able to supply the information to carry out the re set, we just need time to find a suitably priced scanner that will do the job.

We will keep you informed has we go along.

Dave

 

[mikeg]

With regard to getting the attention of Porsche at a senior level, two suggestions:

- why not try a very senior person at VAG - executive.office@volkswagen.co.uk
- although the US don't have GPF's presumably the European markets do - have they had the same issues and if so what about contacting Porsche Club Deutschland for some advice on how to escalate ?

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Guys & Girls

Following on from my post on the 18th September regarding the ash % adaptation on a 2019 Boxster 2.0 thats just come back from a trip around Europe.

The car has now covered over 3 thousand miles and the measured ash % reading is still at 0.00%.

This is absolutely brilliant news, the 3 other cars we adapted only managed to get to around 500 miles before the Ash % came back.

We have carried out this adaptation on another Boxster 2.0 this week and we will be monitoring the ash % going forward.

This car had a 93% ash % reading and the DTC code P242F was present in the DME.

Our Diagnostic scanner cleared the P242F oil ash code, without having to do a regeneration first.

If you remember the Porsche internal memo that came out last year says that the 100% ash reading corresponds to the fault threshold of P242F.

Last measured, percentage ash load in the particulate filter, based on an evaluation of the differential sensor values after a complete soot regeneration.

It goes on to say that ash particals are slightly larger than soot particals in petrol engines. They can be produced through additives in the engine oil.The oil may enter the combustion chamber via the crankcase ventilation system, for example, causing the formation of ash particals.

Over the course of time, these ash particals accumulate in the particulate filter.

It then mentions checks to be carried out on the following.

1. Carring out cylinder leakage checks to make sure no oil is present in the cylinders.

2. Checks on the intake and exhaust, the AOS and Turbo, valve stem oil seals looking for oil internal consumption signs.

3. Checks on the turbocharger actuator function and finally checks on the functionality of the differential pressure sensor.

4. The service history needs to be checked and confirmed that the correct low Ash oil has been used on all services.

There is no mention in the memo regarding clearing this code P242F

Thats a lot of work.

Porsche and their Dealers continue to believe that this Ash is real, a simple back pressure check at this point would have saved all this time, effort and expense.

They say after doing all these above checks if every thing is ok, then in some cases the GPF can be recovered, therefore a GPF regeneration should be attempted to see if the ash load level resets itself.

If it doesn't then the GPF should be replaced with a modified part, and the vehicle retested.

If the ash is real, how can we re set it without doing any of the above checks, and not carring out a soot regeneration cycle to clear the code.

There is never any soot values present when the filter reaches the 100% ash reading.

We are going to monitor both of these cars that have had the GPF Ash % load, readapted and will report back to you with our findings.

But this definitely confirms that this ash is not real, and using a diagnostic scanner than can perform this software adaptation is the way forward.

Dave

 

[Wrightrubber]

Hi Dave

Early days but this looks really promising, it could be the breakthrough you have been waiting over three years for!!!!

Brilliant work.

Regards

Mark

 

[JohnCRS]

Dave. This is a real step forward. Thank you for persevering with it. I wonder what the difference is between the 3000 mile car and the others where the ash % came back. Or was it a different scanner?

I do wonder if the latest scanner is able to turn the ash calculation off, rather than reset it. The fact that it is zero rather than some measurable low % seems a bit odd. Either way, the result is the same, you now have a way of turning the CEL off.

Porsche are at the NEC again this November. Do you think we would be in a position to go public with the solution at this time?

 

[patersont718t]

Hi Guys & Girls

Following on from my post on the 18th September regarding the ash % adaptation on a 2019 Boxster 2.0 thats just come back from a trip around Europe.

The car has now covered over 3 thousand miles and the measured ash % reading is still at 0.00%.

This is absolutely brilliant news, the 3 other cars we adapted only managed to get to around 500 miles before the Ash % came back.

We have carried out this adaptation on another Boxster 2.0 this week and we will be monitoring the ash % going forward.

This car had a 93% ash % reading and the DTC code P242F was present in the DME.

Our Diagnostic scanner cleared the P242F oil ash code, without having to do a regeneration first.

If you remember the Porsche internal memo that came out last year says that the 100% ash reading corresponds to the fault threshold of P242F.

Last measured, percentage ash load in the particulate filter, based on an evaluation of the differential sensor values after a complete soot regeneration.

It goes on to say that ash particals are slightly larger than soot particals in petrol engines. They can be produced through additives in the engine oil.The oil may enter the combustion chamber via the crankcase ventilation system, for example, causing the formation of ash particals.

Over the course of time, these ash particals accumulate in the particulate filter.

It then mentions checks to be carried out on the following.

1. Carring out cylinder leakage checks to make sure no oil is present in the cylinders.

2. Checks on the intake and exhaust, the AOS and Turbo, valve stem oil seals looking for oil internal consumption signs.

3. Checks on the turbocharger actuator function and finally checks on the functionality of the differential pressure sensor.

4. The service history needs to be checked and confirmed that the correct low Ash oil has been used on all services.

There is no mention in the memo regarding clearing this code P242F

Thats a lot of work.

Porsche and their Dealers continue to believe that this Ash is real, a simple back pressure check at this point would have saved all this time, effort and expense.

They say after doing all these above checks if every thing is ok, then in some cases the GPF can be recovered, therefore a GPF regeneration should be attempted to see if the ash load level resets itself.

If it doesn't then the GPF should be replaced with a modified part, and the vehicle retested.

If the ash is real, how can we re set it without doing any of the above checks, and not carring out a soot regeneration cycle to clear the code.

There is never any soot values present when the filter reaches the 100% ash reading.

We are going to monitor both of these cars that have had the GPF Ash % load, readapted and will report back to you with our findings.

But this definitely confirms that this ash is not real, and using a diagnostic scanner than can perform this software adaptation is the way forward.

Dave

Hi Dave great perseverence and work, which cars had there diff pressure sensors changed prior to the adaption?

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi Tony,

Both our Boxster 2.0 2019 cars that have had this new adaptation had their differential pressure sensors replaced, before the adaptation.

The earlier 3 cars that we did before didn't have the sensors replaced.

I would suggest that in the future we can check the differential pressure sensors using the ignition on, engine off check to see if the sensor shows a zero reading.

If it doesn't the sensor is definitely faulty providing both pipes from the GPF to the sensor are not blocked.

If these sensors haven't been replaced since the car was new, they need replacing anyway.

We have also discovered that these early sensors have been less than reliable on other vehicles.

We have found that when our Dealers have replaced our GPF filters for the modified filter, these differential pressure sensors have not been checked for correct functionality.

Which is a real shame when its one of the important checks mentioned on the recent Porsche Technical memo regarding the P242F ash reading high problem.

Enclose below is a photo showing the old and troublesome sensor, and its new replacement.

Also John,

We used a different diagnostic scanner, that is bidirectional, it can view information and also input values.

We also entered a value into the ash software to compensate for mileage covered by the vehicle

We are going to the NEC Classic car show on Friday November 13th, so we will call in for a coffee and a chat.

Dave

 

[ianthow]

I have been following this thread since the beginning. I recall reading an generic article about GPF life in the Australian motoring press in the early days. Their concern was that a lot fuel across the country was low quality. The article suggested that, with quality fuels, the design life of a GPF was at least 100,000 (Miles/Km?, I don't remember).

I decided to ask the question of AI (ChatGPT). The response is here: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6ace2ffce430819185ceb684920f52f2.

I then replied that I was interested in data for a 2019 Porsche 718 Boxster 2.0L, response: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6ace30d63a988191912828ae0f3b977e. Note the response mentions the GB issues, but no reference to a wider problem. Could this be indicative of a difference in the handling of this problem in Europe?

In response to the prompt for more info on the usage, I suggested 20-30K miles, short journeys and showing a warning light, response: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6ace29838b3c81919b42e37b4a8031cd.

 

[JohnCRS]

Thanks for this Ian. We have been puzzling over the fact that this issue has only had exposure in UK and only because, right at the start, Porsche refused to cover it under warranty. Indeed, they even changed the wording of the warranty to specifically state is was a filter and therefore excluded. If the warranty had covered it we would not have a problem in terms of ownership. Contrast this with the early PDK gearbox issues which were kept hidden under the warranty carpet.

 

[JohnCRS]

Looking at the Chat GPT responses, these concern reports of a blocked GPF which is the diagnosis we are familiar with. However we are actually dealing with a measured 100% ash load, triggering the CEL, which is being diagnosed by the OPC's as a blocked GPF, even though the car runs perfectly well. We have concluded that this is therefore a mis-diagnosis, largely driven by the fact that they have no way of actually measuring the ash load or resetting it (with or without a rgeneration)

Another puzzle is that the car that was the subject of a complete strip down and ultimately was bought back by Porsche, was eventually returned to the market 'fixed'. How Porsche were able to do this is not clear. Perhaps Porsche do have a fix that they can apply in other markets but are not willing to share with us in the UK whilst they can charge £9000 plus for a new GPF.

Ultimately this has always been about how to get the CEL turned off without members being charged an extortionate amount for the priviledge.

They obviously did not expect Dave to be so determined to find a solution, for which we are very grateful.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Hi John and Ian,

Pauls car that had all those parts fitted wasn't fixed, it still had an ash level that was unacceptable bearing in mind it had all those parts fitted, including a brand new engine and two modified GPF filters.

Thats why Paul decided to end his relationship with that car and purchased a 4.0 upgrade.

Which thankfully don't suffer from this issue we have on our cars.

The main issue on all the cars we have been involved in is the absence of a adaptation process to re set the differential pressure sensor, after replacement and the same regarding the replacement of the GPF filter.

We have known this from day one, because it was not programed into the PWIS system to allow these important emission adaptations.

Its unbelievable that Porsche and their Dealers have not rectified this major error regarding the control of these emission components.

You cannot have a situation where a suspected blocked GPF filter with soot or Ash cannot be reset, once its been established that there is no backpressure present in the system. Soot can always be removed by cleaning and regeneration, Ash is permanent.

Nineteen of our cars that have had a new modified GPF filter fitted because they were supposedly blocked with Ash, are all showing Ash values that have accumulated quicker than they did on the original GPF filter.

We have the same problem that the Dealers were seeing way back in 2019, when the modified GPF filter was brought in to fix this issue.

And the reason for this is, the lack of software built into these cars, to carry out this simple task.

A basic re set of these values was never in the Dealers grasp.

So they have continued for the last 4 years to ignore our requests to carry out a simple backpressure check which would definitely stop this stupidity in its tracks.

They and Porsche have continued to keep the reason for this fault buried under the excuses, that the wrong engine oil, driving style, and lack of service history have caused this Ash buildup.

Knowing full well, that none of this is true, none of our faulty cars have been high mileage vehicles which makes this situation even more ridiculous.

Even shutting the door on a possible GPF claim on the Porsche extended warranty when it wasn't in the exclusion section, it is now.

The fact that we can reset this ash value using another OBD2 diagnostic scanner says it all.

Afterall if Ash was physical in these GPF filters it couldn't be altered using any type of software.

This has always been a major miss-diagnosis of this fault on these cars, and its continuing.

I wonder how long is this going to carry on.

Dave

 

[BrianJ]

I wonder how long is this going to carry on.

Until it hits the widely-read motoring press is probably the answer to that.

That most recent post is the best summarised description of this ridiculous situation I have seen. Well done Dave.

 

[Cyclemotor1958]

Thanks BrianJ,

The fact that the Dealers say Porsche will not allow them to do a backpressure check, to diagnose this fault says it all.

How can they continue to say no, its unbelievable, and not acceptable.

We have documented proof that back pressure is not present on cars showing the P242F ash load 100%.

So thats done and dusted, we are now concentrating on the Ash adaptation process, and will report back with our findings has we go along.

I was looking back through some of our 2025 GPF information last night and found that on the 8th January 2025 we had 29,000 views on this subject.

We now have 214,000 views

And to anybody out there that sees this fault code P242F, or they are told they need a new GPF filter, THEY DON'T, THE ASH IS NOT REAL ASH.

Dave

 

[Scrounger]

Until it hits the widely-read motoring press is probably the answer to that.

That most recent post is the best summarised description of this ridiculous situation I have seen. Well done Dave.

Totally agree Brian

Dan