Very interesting.

I’m similar to you. My 2024 R is also a 3rd car with relatively low miles.

Did you happen to run the GPF read functions that give you some sort of indication around when the last GPF regeneration was ran, the number that were ran by the ECU etc, and stuff like that? And the bit that indicates what the current soot level of build up on the GPF is? It would be interesting to see what it says.

 

I did not run it at all. I assumed it would not return any results since I've only had the car a few months.

I did not see a read option, but I'll check under the diagnostic module when I get back to the car this evening. I was in the service section for that piece.

 

HERE’S SOME RELEVANT NEW INFO I THINK:

Pretty much at the same time that this whole thing came up I had started looking around more seriously at potential exhaust upgrades for my car. I was mainly looking at velocityap stuff, but I came across a video showing a Quicksilver exhaust product on a newer style F-Type like I have. Sounded great.

Anyway, the relevant aspect is the fact that this particular exhaust from Quicksilver was such that the back exhaust valves become completely independently controlled by the owner via some phone app for keeping them completely closed or completely open (i.e.:The app talks to some separate power unit in the trunk area that actually does the actuation of the valves). So, this actuation of the back valves is done completely independent of the ECU.

I thought about this after the fact, and I kinda clued in recently that this is similar to pulling fuse 15 in a way, in that initially I figured it would be impossible for the GPF management by the ECU to get confirmation that the back valves are closed/open as part of what it’s doing (As Busby is saying is necessary to at least some degree). Right? So, if the back valves are independent of the ECU now completely, how could there not be a problem for the ECU to exercise control over the back valves for GPF stuff as Busby talks about.

I’m thinking, surely Quicksilver is not selling product that harms peoples’ cars. I have some interest in their exhaust anyway, so I figured I would reach out. I asked them specifically about potential concerns of GPF management that might result because of the back valves becoming completely controlled independent of the ECU.

So they actually told me that, although their valve control after install is truly independent, their install involves having a “fully simulating valve emulator” in place. So, if and when the ECU as part of its GPF management activities tries to ascertain the positioning of the back valves in whatever it is doing, this “fully simulating valve emulator” is there to answer the ECU and present what needs to be presented in order for it to be happy and proceed. This is despite the answer not reflecting reality if you will.

He basically told me that, although changes to the position of the back valves can optimize for GPF regeneration, it is not absolutely required in reality. Such control can certainly make the regeneration process more efficient, but it’s not absolutely necessary. He said that when their simulator returns the dummy answer the ECU will proceed and ultimately be able to compensate for the lack of true back valve control that isn’t really there. He said the pressure differential sensors involved or whatever will be able to regulate the regeneration heat cycle regardless.

So what does this all mean? I’m still not sure this information definitively backs up the idea that pulling fuse 15 is a death sentence, but the fact that Quicksilver is taking the time to have this simulator valve in place certainly demonstrates something relevant I’d say. At an absolute minimum it shows that not getting an answer back to the ECU from the back valves (definitely the case with fuse 15 pulled) seems problematic on some level. Is this ultimately leading to solenoid failure in the engine bay like is being said? That I don’t know, but regardless, to me this is very interesting/relevant.

Someone above sorta mentioned this idea of having the actuator valves there to answer etc…In my response to them above there I just didn’t realize the fact that the back valve control wasn’t mandatory for the GPF…
Thought I’d share this…

Cheers

 

Reinstall fuse 15 and unplug at the actuators?

 

But wouldn’t that essentially be the same problem in the end? The ECU won’t get a message back that way either, right?

 

This is exactly the same way my old 2010 XFS (diesel) operated, with orange and red DPF warning lights, trouble codes, DTCs and "restricted performance" warning.
I have a sneaking suspicion that what the Otofix tool is showing here is for a diesel only and possibly not for a petrol/gas car with OPF/PPF/GPF, best way to check would be to see if it really can trigger a regeneration.
Also when I said "5,000 miles" a few posts back that was purely a WAG based on my experience with the XFS, lots of reading back then about Jag DPF operation and trouble shooting, and my assumption that a gas/petrol engine produces a lot less particulates than a diesel engine (hence the OPF/PPF/GPF would clog up and need a regeneration a lot less often than a diesel). I am still yet to see/read any authoritative or definitive info on how often a Jag with an OPF/PPF/GPF performs an auto regeneration (i.e. Dynamic/Standard per the table above.), either by mileage or time.

 

But if he put his VIN into the tool it wouldn’t present DPF functions, would it?

 

Anyway, I’m starting to gain some acceptance towards the idea that the fuse could be interfering with the ability of a GPF regeneration cycle to run (based on what I posted above there)…I’m still confused about how this could translate to this over working of a solenoid in the engine bay and its failure, like is being suggested…

 

my driving habits are such that it would take me 5yr to get 5000 mi. So I'm thinking I put the fuse back in every couple of years and take a long drive

 

You know, I thought about this afterwards a bit more. Given that we don’t fully understand all this yet, you never know, you could be right? For instance, maybe if the fuse was in, but the connection to the actuators was severed like you are suggesting, this could possibly be enough to make it such that this supposed engine bay solenoid valve won’t burn out (even if regens can’t initiate).

So let’s go with this theory for a moment…Say this would prevent the solenoid burnout. You’d still have the problem where regens of the GPF are not running. If I then used a scan tool to manually run a regen would it perhaps refuse to do so if it couldn’t control the valves with the connection severed? Not sure…Connecting the actuators could then allow me to run a manual regen, but sort of a pain in the butt.

Anyway, some thoughts I had after the fact…This is also not great for someone who doesn’t want to drive with the valves open all the time…

 

Good afternoon DMeister, I meant to reply sooner; I was roughly moving the same direction. I was a bit more focused on an earlier comment that the position of the actuator itself is not critical to enablement, cycle, or competition of regen. A full blow solution (simulator as mentioned earlier) possibly may not be required. *hint at Quicksilver team though

 

I cannot imagine Quicksilver would add that simulator to their product if it wasn’t needed. Businesses will naturally do as little as possible to save cost.

Actually having control over the back exhaust valves may not, in the end, be absolutely required for a successful regeneration, but according to Quicksilver their simulator is required to fool the ECU into thinking it has that control before it will start a regen. As long as the GPF regen can be initiated the pressure differential sensors (those that compare pressure front and back of the filter) can apparently compensate and make things work despite not actually optimally being able to control back valve position as part of the burn management. This is what I’m getting from the info.

 

The tool downloads the Jaguar modules and only presents what options are available after a scan is completed. It does recognize the correct engine in my case. The transmission appeared as manual though, but I believe that is a classification given due to the flappy paddles.

I went back today to see what the tool would return and decided to stop. I wasn't prepared to run a 30-minute cycle. The static/rapid regeneration appear to be automated by the software and the dynamic/standard regeneration requires you to actually drive and get to a desired operating temperature. More screenshots attached.

I'll keep my eyes open for any warning lights, but I don't expect to see them anytime soon.



Standard regeneration instructions.

Rapid regeneration instructions.

 

This makes complete sense that it is presenting GPF functionality. I have confirmed for at least one scan tool vendor that GPF stuff should be possible with our cars (Topdon).

 

Looking at the site for a couple of minutes I did not see anything obviously indicating there is some sort of simulator in the box. At a very high level, it appears their valve control unit is standalone. (Plug their box to the exhaust, run it from app.) Are the only differences from the DIY methods 1) Sometimes the valve may be closed via the app vs. never with DIY (see your GFP regen comment) 2) Fuse 15 is still plugged in?

If I am incorrect here, my suggestion earlier is that Quicksilver starts selling the simulator separately before someone else does

 

Yep, sure looks like it will run regens for gas/petrol F-Types as it plainly says "Gasoline Particulate Filter (GPF)"!
Can't see why the Dynamic/Standard regen specifies it is a two man operation, surely you can sit the tool on your lap or the passenger seat?
One of my favourite car/mechanic shows is Rayman Ray's Repairs and he does this all the time with zero problems.
But I suppose there is a faint risk that doing it on your lonesome might tempt you to take your eyes off the road occasionally so they have to CYA (by showing this instruction) to avoid running afoul of the safety mavens.
Can you tell us which OTOFIX tool you have as they seem to have a number of them with a wide range of prices so members here know which level/price they might need to run GPF regens?
I can't find any info on their web pages about GPF regen functionality let alone which of their models can do them and which can't. With any luck even their cheapest offering can do them.

 

Just found this page/PDF of Launch (OBD2 scan tool) instructions for running a GPF regen: https://repairdata.x431.com/pdf/2021...aa10df3c70.pdf
Exactly the same instructions as posted about the OTOFIX tool!
So that's another tool that'll get 'er done.
Funny though how the instructions are identical, maybe it's really the same manufacturer or these are generic/industry standard instructions?

 

I had to contact them directly to get that information about the simulator. This was told to me by one of their tech guys. And yes, fuse 15 is still plugged in for their solution.

 

I have been talking to Launch. Their tool does generally for sure. Currently their tool will not specifically support the F-type, but I was told their next software release should.

Topdon said theirs fully supports my car at this time after I provided a VIN.

Autel likely does. Their higher end models do this GPF stuff generally, but I’ve yet to confirm for certain the f-type is covered. Likely will be.

 

I have the IM1 which is primarily for locksmith work, but on the Otofix site, the D1 Lite tool is listed to perform GPF regeneration with Jaguar software 1.40 or higher. I'm currently running 1.70. The D1 Lite is listed on their site for $319.

You can alao find them on sites like aliexpress for a bit cheaper. I never looked at Launch, but I think all of these devices are made in China and sold under various names with one group supplying the software.

I'm not sure if it's required, but for my model, an internet connection is required to get anything done. That may be solely for cloud access to immobilizer data.

I'm going to run the rapid test one day this week just to see how long. It actually takes and if it will drive my neighbors mad. I had problems on the block while running a transmission fluid flush on my Corvette before changing the filter. I expect this to last much longer.