The method I used to coax my old XFS into doing a regeneration was to take it on a longish drive (at least 40 or 50 miles) at highish speed (over 50 mph) in a lower gear so as to keep the revs up, I used 3rd gear at 60 mph which was around 3,500 rpm (6 speed ZF 6HP26). The idea was/is to get the exhaust system nice and hot, coz what I didn't explain before is that as well as a threshold exhaust flow difference the ECU is also looking for a minimum exhaust system/DPF temperature before it will invoke a regeneration.
Also on the XF and I believe all diesel Jags it was/is possible for a JLR dealership to force a DPF regeneration using their SDD equipment, and some specialist independent shops can also do this.
Maybe one or both methods can also be used on a petrol Jag fitted with an OPF/PPF, dunno.
I have looked on the interwebz for info on OPFs/PPFs and there is very little, much of it is dead wrong in some particulars (they confuse them with cat converters) and there is nothing specifically on Jag OPFs/PPFs. The articles I found all say that you never have to worry about your OPF/PPF as it is self-cleaning and maintenance free, where have we heard that before!
I would have guessed that a recent F-Type with an OPF/PPF would show some details in the Owner Handbook??????

 

Lol no idea. I do know this guy works at a reputable Jag tuner shop. However if I were a "fuse 15" guy with one of the 2019+ cars, after reading this I would likely put my fuse back in until I fully understood what happens.

This is all from the FB group Jaguar Mod Squad, go join it, find Paul Busby and start asking questions

 

I don't have Facebook, but will definitely keep an eye on this thread.

 

So sounds to me like this system applies to 2019+ cars with electric rear exhaust valves maybe. When I replaced my exhaust system with the supersprint, touring system there were only four O2 sensors and no other valves or sensor visible, unless they are attached directly to the manifolds on both side and not easily seen.

The good thing with the "Claws Out" mod I came up with is you don't remove the fuse, everytime the car starts its in a normal state, the vacuum valves only fully open when you hit the button disconnecting the fuse thru the modules relays. When you press the button again, or shut down and restart the car. the system returns to normal. Gives you the option to be ***** out or steath at the push of a button.

 

Well, I just got my 2023 about 2 mo ago and pulled fuse 15 right away. Only have driven it 300 miles, so I guess I'll put the fuse back in. I loved the sound for a few month anyway. With the fuse in I hardly ever got above 3500 rpm running around town to hear the claws out.

 

My claws out mod is set to have the fuse in as standard and only be claws out when I hit the remote.

This weekend I was going to change the wiring to make it claws out as standard and only be quiet when I need it (early starts etc).

Now going to have to rethink that whilst I await the outcome of this thread.

I suspect it isn't a matter of putting the fuse back in occasionally as presumably it has to already be in when the car wants to regenerate, unless as suggested above we can get a method to force regeneration when the fuse is in so that it then doesn't try again for a number of months when we have the fuse out.

 

Yeah, my Claws Out is setup like Penfold’s is currently…I have to choose to have the fuse out…I too will leave it that way.

Not sure where everyone else stands on this, but I need to get to some solution for this because the exhaust is unacceptably boring with the fuse in. There has to be a workable solution here.

All I really care about here personally is that I can’t do anything to wreck my engine. If there is a cost to replace a solenoid and/or OPF device every 30k miles in a safe/controlled manner or something then so be it. I could live with the annoyance/cost so long as there was no risk to my engine, and I could keep the sweet exhaust noises going.

The difference is so dramatic, and not having it would seriously take away from my enjoyment of the car. It’s that important to me. Not sure if others feel the same, or if you are indifferent about it, but for me this matters for sure.

It’s shameful what Jaguar did with these later F-types sound-wise as far as I’m concerned. The fuse 15 bit remedied that for me, but yeah, not so sure now..lol

 

You’ve definitely injected a lot of good info to consider here. I think I might reach out to my local independent and explain the concern, directly ask if they have a sure fire means of triggering a regeneration with some equipment etc…Would be good to know, and definitely might playing into some workable maintenance regiment/procedure to keep the fuse 15 good times rolling? Lol One can hope.

 

I checked the owners manual and there is nothing in there that I can see addressing anything to do with PPF/GPF/OPF. Made sense to me that there might be like you suggested, and I found references to other makes and models having such things being referenced in owners manuals (Nissan for example), but nothing here.

 

In response to someone's questions on the FB thread, Paul mentions:

"seems to be happening so time after remove 18 month to 2 years is what we have seen so far"

So you guys do have time, and to DMeister's point maybe you just take the risk and eat the cost if it fails.

 

Be curious to know what we're talking there in terms of mileage in that time frame...Low miles, typical car miles? etc

I too don't have Facebook.

 

Heh---Brings me back to the 'old days' when we needed to get our collector cars through emissions testing with an exhaust 'sniffer'. Learned early-on not to visit the test station after only a 5-mile drive! The catalytic converters needed at least 20 - 30 minutes of engine operation to fully heat up.

The more things change....

 

I'd like to know what the sample size is that Viezu has seen and how they know this is directly related. Correlation does not equal causation.

As an FYI, GPF/OPF wasn't installed on North American cars until MY2022 and I believe it was MY2018 for the rest of the world. So this should be a non-issue for cars in those markets prior to those years since there is no regeneration requirement.

Even then, according to the wiring diagrams, pulling fuse 15 interrupts the power to the exhaust solenoid valve (fuse 43 on the older cars interrupted the power to the vacuum pump, which served the same purpose to force the valves open). The solenoid valve can't be trying to do anything, regardless of what the ECM tells it to do, so I don't see how it could 'burn out' from overuse since it has no power. This is the same for the MY2021 and newer cars (with the GPF/OPF). (DJS, please proof my wiring schematic interpretations).

See the attached wiring diagrams PDF and the exhaust system PDF for reference.

 

I agree with your interpretation, with the following caveats:
Is the ‘exhaust gas solenoid valve’ the same as the active exhaust valve we’re looking at? I have no idea.
If not, we’d need to see the schematic for that. If it’s different, not impossible that it comes off the same fuse. Again, I have no idea, and the schematics I have are apparently older than when the GPF was added.

 

I’ve been waiting for the Thunder Dumpster to chime in ;-0

I will say that I have been reading more generally about GPF filters, and the need to have the back exhaust valves closed when a regeneration cycle needs to run (back pressure requirements etc). So this seems to be the case from what I’m reading, so I can perhaps accept that the act of pulling fuse 15 could certainly interfere with the need to do a regeneration cycle. That’s fine.

What I can’t get my head around is what Thunder Dump just said. If the solenoid for this other separate exhaust gas valve or whatever is able to get overworked and burnt out when it goes to try and close the back exhaust valves with the help of fuse 15, well, then I guess the solenoid is powered some other way (not using fuse 15). That must be the case if there is any truth to the problem being described by this tuner fella.

Perhaps that is exactly it? The source of power for the 2 things is separate, and as the overall GPF management process fails to confirm the back valves are closed (because fuse 15 is pulled) it overworks the solenoid for the exhaust gas valve bit using the separate power source or something?

Not sure obviously, but yeah, something is not totally adding up here…

 

Yeah, so I believe. we’re talking about 2 sets of valves that are involved in the overall GPF management. The exhaust valves at the back of the car, and some other solenoid exhaust gas valve that is in the engine bay near the manifold.

 

THE OTHER SEPARATE ISSUE that reading about this stuff brought to my attention (separate from the fuse 15 concern):

People who have GPF cars as lower mileage, short drive, fun summer only cars…These sorts of use cases can tend to never create driving conditions that will lead to the ECU being able to initiate a proper auto regen cycle for the GPF. I read stories of people with these use cases with other cars having these GPF filters, and what can end up happening is the GPF just fills up with soot, and then it’s too much at that point for a regen cycle to be able to run and be effective anyway…At that point physical cleaning and/or replacement of the GPF unit is needed.

Which begs the question for someone like me that has this sort of use case: Will my ECU even try to initiate a regen cycle anyway? Lol…

 

https://viezu.com/team/paul-busby/

Probably worth the time for one of you guys to reach out to find out what exactly he has been seeing. If you do have FB the link to the thread is above as well.

 

No doubt better info/ideas/clarity around this will come, but for my head the conclusion for OPTIONS to keep the fuse 15 good times rolling are -->

1) GPF delete. This, of course, has the potential of bringing warranty, legal, and environmentally-based ethical concerns to the table, along with other potential hassles if remapping doesn’t go well or whatever. For me this is not really an option. In Ontario where I live this would be illegal for sure, and eventually with the way the environmental movement is going you just know that decision would catch up with me eventually...Huge fines, hassles etc...

2) Look for some sort of after market back exhaust valve opening/closing solution that could run independently (I know they’re out there) and achieve the ability to have them open all the time as I want (i.e.: Without pulling fuse 15), but something that could be wired in a way that does NOT INTERFERE with the ECU’s GPF management needs to close those back exhaust valves when needed. So, I’m driving along with them open as I want them to be with the after market solution, but then if the ECU decides that the car needs a GPF regeneration cycle then it would be able to override my current desire for fully open valves and close them for the cycle. No idea if this is pie in the sky, or if this would be achievable, but I like the high level idea of something like this…Could be something to explore…

3) Keep my from factory exhaust untouched end-to-end as is. Find a way to both determine how dirty my GPF filter is at any given moment and monitor it, and have a means for forcing GPF regeneration cycles on-demand if my monitoring shows that it is necessary. I have found videos that suggest both of these things are possible on BMWs and other makes with DPF/OPF/PPF/GPF realities (i.e.: Using appropriate scanner tools/apps), so perhaps this could be an option for us as well. Not sure yet. Assuming this monitoring and active on-demand regeneration was possible, then I suppose this issue about leaving fuse 15 out all the time would, in practical terms, logically go away. That is, if I’m proactively, as part of my maintenance, ensuring clean GPF conditions all the time (as previously described) then in theory the ECU will never run an automatic regeneration cycle. Which, of course, should mean that this supposed overworking of the solenoid valve in the engine bay will never occur in practical terms.

—

OF THESE OPTIONS I’m leaning towards #3, assuming that it is feasible. In any case, this is my thought process at this point based on the information we have.

Any thoughts?

 

Someone on the UK forum already did, here's the response.


I have asked Viezu - Paramount this morning for more info and they replied as below.

The solenoid is under the bonnet, its separate from the exhaust valves, but it needs the valves to close to work, so my understanding is, if the valves will not close, the solenoid cant work, but it keeps trying, from what we have seen this takes some time to go wrong, 18 months from what we are seeing, but we are seeing an increasing number fail, and only in cars with the fuse removed, if caught early, you get a fault code, which will not clear, but as soon as the fuse is reinstalled the fault clears, and the issues is resolved. If left though the solenoid itself can fail.

The early cars were vacuum controlled, and valves can be deactivated, but the later cars 2019 on, the vales are there to do more than just control the noise, and are electronic valves for this reason, they are part of the PPF system, you can still remove the valves and fit a sports exhaust system, but the fuse must be left in place as must the valve motors