So, I read this on that forum. It made sense until you consider the fact that, in theory, a proper regeneration cycle for the GPF will only happen IF the back valves are fully closed (i.e.: In order to create adequate back pressure when the ECU GPF management function deems that this back pressure is needed in the moment). So, I suppose it would "work" in the sense that at least the cycle would run and not end up overworking the engine bay solenoid exhaust valve business, but in reality the regeneration cycles would not actually be achieving what they set out to achieve.

That said, depending on how one looks at it, this could still be viewed as a "solution" ;-) As long as you are willing to deal with the need to have physical cleanings of the GPF done as appropriate, or replace the GPF unit when it inevitably fails prematurely due to the fact that the running regeneration cycles are not actually being effective.

 

The GPFs on these cars are neither removable or serviceable. They are embedded into the cats so the only way to replace them is get new cats (and vice-versa).

 

When I had my XFS I remember reading about OBD2 code readers and scanners that had a function to measure DPF exhaust flow difference, as a proxy for the soot level inside the DPF.
Surely by now there are code readers/scanners that can also do this for gas/petrol cars with GPF/PPF/OPF???
For example the iCarsoft LR 3.0 (I have the older LR 2.0) can invoke a forced DPF regeneration, see here: https://www.icarsoft.eu/iCarsoft-LR-V3.0
But it mentions nothing about a forced GPF/PPF/OPF regeneration let alone measuring soot level.

 

I found at least one scan tool from Launch that claims to be able to trigger a regeneration on both DPF and GPF, but I’ve yet to confirm specifically that the GPF function will work on the F-type.

 

For anyone that might be interested…

I talked with someone today in the industry with knowledge of Jaguars, and they were not necessarily ready to accept wholesale with certainty that fuse 15 being pulled is necessarily causal for the issues being talked about here in the thread. Their suggestion was that, like a lot of info out there, a healthy dose of skepticism could be warranted here.

Their thought was that if this other exhaust gas solenoid being talked about was powered by the same fuse 15 as the back valves then it’s clear: There can be no logical way fuse 15 is causing this solenoid to burn out.

Even if this other solenoid is somehow powered from a different power source than the fuse 15 circuit, according to them it made little to no sense that the ECU would exhibit behaviour where it would repeatedly try to actuate this other solenoid in the engine bay over and over.

I’m still not necessarily fully dismissing the concerns, but this is another take/opinion on things. Essentially, the suggestion was that it’s possible that conclusions have been lept to here. Hard to say for sure I guess, but I’m personally open to that possibility even more than I was before.

Take this for what it is worth.

Cheers

 

so DMeister. . .are you pulling fuse or not based on your conversation?

 

Sorry upfront for the long response, but I feel it is necessary if it’s gonna be useful for you…

I’ve only driven my car once since his whole thing came up. I disabled my Claws Out Mode (i.e.: Fuse 15 simulated to be in) for that ride just to remind that it is nowhere near as awesome. Confirmed. Lol.

In any case man, it’s sort of a none issue for me right now, as I will be on vacation travelling for weeks and will have no opportunity to drive. In the meantime, and over my vacation, I’m getting a “final” game plan together for my approach to this “problem” (or potential problem).

Out of respect to the individual/company that made these comments to me I will not say who it is, because they did not say I could. Just trying to be respectful, and I appreciated their giving me their direct informed thoughts on the matter. This is a highly respected outfit that people on this forum and beyond will be familiar with, so to me their input provided some balance into this that I personally needed for consideration.

To answer your question more directly, I’m still going to be cautious and not entirely dismiss what this Busby gentleman has brought forward. That would be dumb, as he too commands some respect in the industry as I understand it? Impression I have…

What I’m going to do is get a piece of equipment to at least start monitoring if, and how often, my ECU is performing active GPF regenerations (or not performing them). See my post(s) above for more context, but clearly having this introspection/ability could play into understanding this issue and protecting myself a bit if this is an issue.. I explain my thought process above a bit in another post…

Regenerations not being able to run is supposedly at the basis of what Busby is claiming. So my first thought is to gain some introspection into what is happening, or not happening, in that regard. For example, if this equipment allows me to see that there are regenerations happening despite fuse 15 being out, well yeah, that would be the first clear evidence that he has no idea what he is talking about. Not saying that is the case, but the proof will be in the pudding as they say. I’m going to let reality, facts, and monitoring bear things out, not some potentially inaccurate piece of information floating around the Internet getting everybody in a tissy (myself included LOL).

The equipment should also give me the ability to force GPF regeneration as well if need be, which could be logically helpful to prevent the problem Busby is tabling, if in fact it is an issue…i.e.: Try and keep things clean in the filter so the ECU won’t try to run active regens if that could help…I would do controlled manual regens myself with the fuse in at times as needed, and then be in the clear with the fuse out etc…That would be the idea…Which would mean in theory this solenoid he speaks of can’t burn out (again, if that’s truly a thing and what is happening)…

This is the approach I’m taking in order to be more informed, be cautious, protect myself if it is truly an issue, etc…This whole issue aside, the other concern I have is that my driving habits (low miles, short trips) is also a potential source of disallowing the car to run active GPF regens on its own. Suppose that is the case, this could well be built in protection from the issue Busby is highlighting if my car is never trying to run regens. If my driving style is protecting me in this way from the Busby highlighted issue, well it still is a problem I have to solve (i.e.: GPF constantly building soot). Being able to force on-demand regens with equipment as needed could solve that for me, this potential fuse 15 fiasco aside.

Bottom line, I feel I need equipment one way or the other. I have identified a device that should give me introspection into soot buildup on the GPF, what if any regens are running, the frequency they are running, and that should allow me to manually initiate regens on-demand.

Wow, that was long. Sorry, and I hope you find this at least a bit helpful.

Cheers

 

Yep, very nice response. I also don't drive it very much. Its a grocery getter at best. I don't think I've had it up above 50 mph is weeks. Trips are only 10-15 min. 76 yr old and no place to drive to I guess.

My wife's Corvette has 7000 mi on it in 8 years, so we both need to get them out and blow out the cobb webs more often.

In meantime fuse is back in the car for now.

 

It’s not that hard to press the “Dynamic Mode Button”. I don’t do it all the time…just so the valves get exercised occasionally.

 

Can’t be sure, but I feel that you are not following along here with what this issue is about based on your comment. No biggy either way, just sayin’.

 

Incorrect, my 2020R valves are vacuum operated.

 

Interesting that not one forum member with a 21–24 F-type has experienced an exhaust gas solenoid valve failure.

 

Well, so far anyway. I’m really trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt here. Surely he wouldn’t light a fire under everybody for no legitimate reason, right? If that’s what is beared out in the end, not sure that would be good for business.

Anyway, is what it is. Bit of a confusing situation. I just hope there is some legitimacy to what is being said. Well, I don’t want there to be either, lol, but you know what I mean ;-0

 

Yeah I raised this originally out of concern for you later model guys who pull the fuse, some points that cross my mind:

1) I highly doubt Paul is fabricating this

2) It's definitely in the realm of possibility that the issues he's seeing are not due to pulling fuse 15, but he seems to think so and he does know these cars well

3) Keep in mind, you guys are defending "Hey let's pull this fuse out and see what happens... car sounds better... didn't immediately explode....awesome!!!" These cars are complicated - I can vouch for that back when I was diagnosing why my car wouldn't start (ended up being one of the grounds). This is no old Chevy.

4) It's quite possible that frequency of this issue happening varies, and may be overall infrequent - Paul may see one in 100 cars that have the issue. I imagine most people don't pull the fuse. We all take risks with our cars and my gut tells me this is NOT a screaming issue that warrants panic, but is definitely something to keep in mind. Hell, I am still driving around on my old Y pipe, my car is a 2015, so yes I am taking risks as well (getting it done with my shop at the end of the summer).

5) Sample size for that survey is certainly not sufficient - folks on this forum that care about this issue that bother to answer the survey is a subset of a subset of a tiny subset of the overall F-Type population.

6) IMHO, the most direct way to get to the bottom of his explanation is give him a call and talk to him. If I had a horse in this race that's what I'd be doing now, but it's not an issue for me.

And the irony! I'd LOVE to have a way to pull a fuse etc. temporarily to SILENCE my car at all RPMs. For track days. But nope, the older cars are always open at rest. doh!

 

Don’t recall what MY you have. I recall someone fitting a switch to an early model, to power the active exhaust vacuum pump off the accessory power rather than ignition power, so the valves could be closed before starting the engine.

 

I’ll start by saying I’m glad you brought this info forward one way or the other. Who knows, there could be something to it. Hard to say right now.

In reference to your point #2: To be fair man, read the original quote from him that you conveyed. That is not a quote from someone who is suggesting this is a maybe. Read it, he is talking with certainty there. Whether or not he should be, he is. That is my interpretation, and I believe this is the interpretation of most here. Perhaps that is why the reaction has been a bit mixed? So far it seems thin on hard facts, but maybe I’m wrong.

In reference to your point #3: We are not defending anything man. Why? Because we are not wholesale just accepting right off what this guy is saying without full proof? They’re separate things in my mind. This is something people have been doing after looking at wiring schematics and such to get a sense of what is hooked up to the fuse, considering things, etc…It’s not like this came from someone just throwing their finger in the air hoping for the best etc, and it’s not like this is the first generation f-type, or other make/model of car, people have done this on…It’s a thing……I agree it’s not ideal to be pulling fuses, but it is what it is…

Yeah, who knows what this is about. Perhaps someone should call and talk to him directly. Probably not a bad suggestion, but I’m not sure I’d expect hard evidence from him necessarily. If that was coming surely it would have filtered out into this and other forums by now. That’s my overall take on where this is at currently.

I don’t really know what else to say about it other than I’m not dismissing completely what he is saying. Keeping an eye on it, considering it, etc…

Thanks again for bringing it forward.

Cheers

 

Hey apologies if I sounded critical or patronizing, not intended. I was just thinking outloud. For #2 what I meant to say was it is possible for Paul to think it is one thing and it ends up being another. #3 I don't think you guys are defensive at all, more like you guys are taking a position and I was pointing out the reality of a hack. A hack is a hack (I hack things from time to time, it is fun!) and we don't yet have conclusive info either way on whether it id harmful or not.
cheers!

 

All good man. I think we understand each other

This type of stuff can be hard to get straight. Hopefully we get some more clarity. I will certainly inject any findings that I make if I end up buying that equipment. Happy to share if it can benefit anyone here that is interested.

It almost seems to me that it’s not necessarily a big deal to most around these parts, one way or the other. I could be wrong, but I thought there would be more reaction. Perhaps it’s just that most people on here have pre facelift car and it is not affecting them.

Cheers

 

Hmm interesting - I do have an early car, 2015 R RWD, believe it is a vacuum driven system but not sure how it is triggered. What I am looking for is to disable opening the valves >5000rpm. Pretty sure they would not allow my car at Lime Rock with their normal noise restrictions. Will dig around and see if I can find anything out about it, thanks for the heads up.

 

I just looked at my Otofix diagnostic tool and decided to keep my fuse out for now. I have a 2024 car. I'm not sure if this will work, but I'll try to run the "Standard Regeneration" option every 3000-5000 miles.

Here are a few screenshots of the options presented in the tool when navigating the service section of the tool.


Other options presented in the PCM service menu.

Notice received after selecting particulate regeneration regarding the two options.

Again, I will probably run the Standard Regeneration option every 3,000 - 5,000 miles unless the warning light is illuminated.

In all honesty, my F-Type is a third car, so getting above 5,000 miles each year will be a challenge for me.