18 captured repliesPartial discussion capture · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHReplacement OPF filter - Page 1 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK
Leading reported evidence
Use 718s, the cars affected were post september 2018
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I seem to recall when I was looking at used 718s, the cars affected were post September 2018 to late 2021 (ish).
Leading evidence: 'Use 718s, the cars affected were post september 2018' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check definitively' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
But you'd need to trawl through the Porsche GB thread to check definitively.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
And if the OPF is genuinely the issue and needs replacing, there is this alternate route.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
RPM are indeed offering them, but if you watch that video, Greig says the deletes are for track use only (with a nod and a wink and smirk on his face)
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
18 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
PistonHeads: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T192637Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hi all
I had a engine light in amber come up on the dash on my 2019 porsche cayman and the car was under warranty so I booked it in, the warranty had expired by the time there was a availability with Porsche but they said they would honour it.
I recieved this in the health report
EML on dash, created Val and found fault codes for ash level too high in the OPF filter. Requires new filter, NOT WARRANTY
Any ideas on how much would this cost? As the warranty is now over is it worth going to a Porsche specialist instead (Indy is the term from my understanding??
Thanks
As mentioned, check the PCGB forums where there has been a lot of research into this, current speculation seems to be that this is a software, rather than hardware issue. As you can imagine, a lot of annoyed people that have paid thousands for an OPF replacement when it may not have been needed
ChrisW. said:
What is the MOT position regarding a deleted OPF filter ?
Not sure, but my guess would be that the MOT would be OK because the main CATs are still there. Plus would be surprised of RPM were offering this if the cars would all fail MOTs afterwards. I believe that they recently did a youtube vid on a GT4 which they put this on.
Gt4user said:
They are not cheap and I not sure the outcome as it 27 pages long.
https://www.porscheclubgb.com/forum/threads/cayman...
Just had a read. Porsche still dragging their feet and refusing warranty claims it seems. Lots of drivers unaware of the problems (no lights on the dash) until the GPF is completely blocked, result is a new GPF and CAT (single part) at a cost of £7500, ouch. Seems that a new cat / GPF doesnt fix the problem either, with reports of cars getting blocked again within a few thousand miles
I would have thought deleting the GPF as it is legislation from September 2018 and would be illegal for road use and would invalidate any insurance or warranty claim?
Crudeoink said:
Just had a read. Porsche still dragging their feet and refusing warranty claims it seems. Lots of drivers unaware of the problems (no lights on the dash) until the GPF is completely blocked, result is a new GPF and CAT (single part) at a cost of £7500, ouch. Seems that a new cat / GPF doesnt fix the problem either, with reports of cars getting blocked again within a few thousand miles
Reminds me of what was happening with Diesel cars fitted with particule filter’s throwing up codes where driven short journeys, perhaps an Italian tune up is required?
GT4P said:
Crudeoink said:
Just had a read. Porsche still dragging their feet and refusing warranty claims it seems. Lots of drivers unaware of the problems (no lights on the dash) until the GPF is completely blocked, result is a new GPF and CAT (single part) at a cost of £7500, ouch. Seems that a new cat / GPF doesnt fix the problem either, with reports of cars getting blocked again within a few thousand miles
Reminds me of what was happening with Diesel cars fitted with particule filter’s throwing up codes where driven short journeys, perhaps an Italian tune up is required?
It doesn't seem to make any difference, there is a guy in the thread doing a lot of the research (Cyclemotor1958) he had a car in with a 100% Oil Ash Load, which causes the fault and Porsche say the exhaust is blocked and must be replace. He actually measure the pressure across the GPD on a car and got a delta pressure of 0.02 PSI... essentially nothing. The exhaust is not blocked.
The oil ash load is a calculated value though, not measured, so there is an algorithm somewhere that doesn't work as it should.
Megaflow said:
GT4P said:
Crudeoink said:
Just had a read. Porsche still dragging their feet and refusing warranty claims it seems. Lots of drivers unaware of the problems (no lights on the dash) until the GPF is completely blocked, result is a new GPF and CAT (single part) at a cost of £7500, ouch. Seems that a new cat / GPF doesnt fix the problem either, with reports of cars getting blocked again within a few thousand miles
Reminds me of what was happening with Diesel cars fitted with particule filter’s throwing up codes where driven short journeys, perhaps an Italian tune up is required?
It doesn't seem to make any difference, there is a guy in the thread doing a lot of the research (Cyclemotor1958) he had a car in with a 100% Oil Ash Load, which causes the fault and Porsche say the exhaust is blocked and must be replace. He actually measure the pressure across the GPD on a car and got a delta pressure of 0.02 PSI... essentially nothing. The exhaust is not blocked.
The oil ash load is a calculated value though, not measured, so there is an algorithm somewhere that doesn't work as it should.
What worse is there are quite a few people in the thread that stumped up £1000's to replace a part that didnt need to be replaced !
It's a software issue that Porsche are burying their head in the sand about. Unfortunately Cyclemotor will not go to the motoring press and is hoping that Porsche GB will sort it behind closed doors. Unfortunately (and through experience with another brand) manufacturers will either drag their feet or not respond however, the moment their product is put into disrepute and gets a bad light in the motoring press then they jump on it straight away.
All it takes is for 1 person to speak to the likes of Auto Express, What Car etc and give them the link to the PCGB forum page that discusses it then Porsche DE will sit up and take notice.
AAAndy said:
ChrisW. said:
What is the MOT position regarding a deleted OPF filter ?
Not sure, but my guess would be that the MOT would be OK because the main CATs are still there. Plus would be surprised of RPM were offering this if the cars would all fail MOTs afterwards. I believe that they recently did a youtube vid on a GT4 which they put this on.
https://cobrasport.com/blogs/news/exhaust-talk-3-gpf-opf-ppf-exhaust-filters-explained-improve-sound-performance?srsltid=AfmBOooSHsqTGiobT4jZl4I5N7Xyl9LzRb4IxPswtac5uWO5u1ac4Qi1
RPM are indeed offering them, but if you watch that video, Greig says the deletes are for track use only (with a nod and a wink and smirk on his face)
So you’ll be invalidating any Porsche warranty and most likely fail an MOT too, by fitting them.
A quick call or trip to your local MOT station will establish whether removal of the PPF means a fail, though I suspect it may well.
Mazinbrum said:
The issue is only with 2019 718s? So 2018 and 2020 are ok?
No, I don't think that's correct. I seem to recall when I was looking at used 718s, the cars affected were post September 2018 to late 2021 (ish). But you'd need to trawl through the Porsche GB thread to check definitively. In the end I decided to buy a new 718 (as I couldn't find the spec I wanted) so stopped researching it.
What’s the options for removing the opf, smash the innards out and then refitting so it looks completely standard externally.
Then coding out the error message.
That seems like a logical solution. So long as you are prepared to lose the warranty IF they found out.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
