Porsche Cayman throttle response delay
Discussion
Porsche Caymans can delay throttle response by up to 2.5 seconds at 30mph to comply with European noise legislation rules, according to a report in today's Times newspaper (October 17).
Quotes from the report; "Several Porsche and Audi R8 owners have complained that their cars failed to accelerate under certain specific conditions. They say this is dangerous when they pull out to overtake."
"Porsche staff emailed a German customer admitting there can be a 'delayed response' from the throttle at 30mph and that this was the result of an attempt to comply withEuropean noise limits. High performance cars must pass a test showing that they do not exceed 76 decibels at 30mph."
"John Cieslik, 48, a software engineer who bought a £54,000 Porsche Cayman in 2011, is suing the company over what he alleges is a safety defect that almost caused him to have a collision with a lorry when he tried to overtake."
"He said: "I hit the accelerator pedal expecting to move swiftly out of danger only for the engine to die. I sat for what seemed like an eternity waiting for the lorry, horn blaring and lights flashing to drive straight over me. Within a whisker of a fatal accident, the engine came back to life and the car accelerated away from a near-death experience."
"Nick Ray, another Porsche owner, experienced the same throttle problem, but said he was told by a Porsche dealer that it was "a common characteristic of his type of car for which there is no fix."
"The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, after complaints by Mr Cieslik and other Porsche owners, tested a Porsche and found a delayed throttle response of up to 2.5 seconds."
The DVSA said, like Porsche, this lag did not constitute a safety risk.
It is refusing to release the results of its investigation.
The Times report says "Porsche tried to block the release of a government safety report on one of its cars by suggesting it would no longer cooperate fully with investigation if the information was disclosed."
John Cieslik appealed to the information tribunal to get the DVSA report released. It ruled in his favour in August and ordered the DVSA and the Department of Transport to release the report. The DVSA has refused and is appealing against the tribunal ruling.
Porsche declined to comment as the matter "is the subject of ongoing legal proceedings."
What do I think? There should be no throttle lag at all. I expect Boxsters of the same period as this Cayman are similarly afflicted. If not, why not?
[Posted in news as it seems to me to be worth more notice than being posted in a Cayman sub-section of the Porsche part of the general forum.]
Quotes from the report; "Several Porsche and Audi R8 owners have complained that their cars failed to accelerate under certain specific conditions. They say this is dangerous when they pull out to overtake."
"Porsche staff emailed a German customer admitting there can be a 'delayed response' from the throttle at 30mph and that this was the result of an attempt to comply withEuropean noise limits. High performance cars must pass a test showing that they do not exceed 76 decibels at 30mph."
"John Cieslik, 48, a software engineer who bought a £54,000 Porsche Cayman in 2011, is suing the company over what he alleges is a safety defect that almost caused him to have a collision with a lorry when he tried to overtake."
"He said: "I hit the accelerator pedal expecting to move swiftly out of danger only for the engine to die. I sat for what seemed like an eternity waiting for the lorry, horn blaring and lights flashing to drive straight over me. Within a whisker of a fatal accident, the engine came back to life and the car accelerated away from a near-death experience."
"Nick Ray, another Porsche owner, experienced the same throttle problem, but said he was told by a Porsche dealer that it was "a common characteristic of his type of car for which there is no fix."
"The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, after complaints by Mr Cieslik and other Porsche owners, tested a Porsche and found a delayed throttle response of up to 2.5 seconds."
The DVSA said, like Porsche, this lag did not constitute a safety risk.
It is refusing to release the results of its investigation.
The Times report says "Porsche tried to block the release of a government safety report on one of its cars by suggesting it would no longer cooperate fully with investigation if the information was disclosed."
John Cieslik appealed to the information tribunal to get the DVSA report released. It ruled in his favour in August and ordered the DVSA and the Department of Transport to release the report. The DVSA has refused and is appealing against the tribunal ruling.
Porsche declined to comment as the matter "is the subject of ongoing legal proceedings."
What do I think? There should be no throttle lag at all. I expect Boxsters of the same period as this Cayman are similarly afflicted. If not, why not?
[Posted in news as it seems to me to be worth more notice than being posted in a Cayman sub-section of the Porsche part of the general forum.]
John Cieslik's appeal described in this Information Tribunal PDF file - http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Deci...
In the Information Tribunal report John Cieslik asked the DVSA to release:
"2. The request specifically asked for:
a. "... all information held by VOSA [DVSA] regarding the Porsche
Cayman..."
b. "...in particular the VOSA safety evaluation of the vehicle throttle
malfunction."
c. "...all information you have regarding the VOSA test of the Porsche
Cayman throttle malfunction with particular reference to:
the vehicle transmission
the vehicle exhaust system
the vehicle model (Cayman S or Cayman R)
the date and duration of the test
the vehicle VIN number
the location of the test
the gears used in the test
the vehicle speed when the test was performed"
The document includes this text: "copies of correspondence he had obtained, both were sent to a third party who also owns a Cayman R. The letter from Porsche Germany GmbH dated approximately 1st November 2012 makes direct reference to a Cayman R and states that "the entire motor control and in
particular the fuel mixture preparation has been adapted to reduce vehicle noise and emissions". It refers to a test drive of a "comparable Cayman R, which showed the same response, it was stated that this "is the typical state of the series in this model". "
And; "an email dated 25th September 2012 from Porsche Switzerland AG does not mention a Cayman R specifically ... and this also refers to the same engine characteristic put in place to make the vehicle compliant with regulations governing vehicle noise emissions (ECE 51 - 02 United Nations regulation 'Uniform provisions concerning the approval of: Motor vehicles having at least four wheels with regard to their noise emissions')."
Point 25 in the tribunal report says "Porsche was joined to these proceedings on 26 February 2015 at their request and have also provided comprehensive submissions"
Point 44: "The Appellant provided his third submissions, dated 5th May 2015. These again referred to correspondence including confirmation by both Porsche GmbH and Porsche Switzerland AG that the throttle delay is typical in the Cayman R model regardless of the country of sale and that this is a measure taken by the manufacturer to comply with noise emission regulations. The Tribunal is satisfied to the requisite standard of proof that this is genuine and valid correspondence."
Porsche was unhelpful as Points 55 and 56 and 70 show:
"55. Porsche argue that the requested information relates to product safety rather than the environment and that consequently it does not sit within any of the categories of the definition of environmental information under Regulation 2(1). They say that it is the nature of the requested information itself, which determines whether or not it is environmental information rather than the wording of the request. Further, they argue: "Even on the terms of the Appellant's request for information, it is focused upon vehicle safety/alleged throttle malfunction rather than anything environmental in nature." Consequently, they say "...the information in question in this case could not fall under even a wide interpretation of the definition, as the information relates solely to matters of product safety."
"56. Regarding the specific context of the requested information, Porsche argue that the vehicle safety test "...is not an activity which affects or is likely to affect the elements and factors set out in the Regulations."
"70. Porsche argue that the disputed information is about product safety rather than the environment. With respect we say that whilst the central issue is undoubtedly concerned with product safety, the product in question is a motor vehicle. As we have indicated at paras.62-63, motor vehicles have an impact on the environment, even whilst being tested (contrary to their argument), a measure which we find to be within the definition of environmental information."
Points 80 and 106 are interesting:
"80. The Appellant argues that his request is not manifestly unreasonable, as claimed by Porsche, stating that it is not only in his interest to know if this model has a hesitation. He strenuously denies that he has behaved in an inappropriate or vexatious manner in any of his dealings with any of the Respondents."
"106. Porsche also comment that the Appellant has engaged in a long campaign against them both on-line and via the courts in Northern Ireland. They submit that the present information request, when viewed in the light of the relevant context and history, is vexatious within the meaning of FOIA and thus disclosure would be manifestly unreasonable under the EIRs. "
Points 116 and 117 rebut this:
"116. Porsche also claimed that the Appellant's long campaign against them, both on-line and via the courts rendered his request manifestly unreasonable. The Tribunal rejects this argument. "
"117. ... There is no evidence of any harassment or distress, indeed the Appellant made clear in his request that he did not wish to see any personal information. It would therefore be difficult to accept any claim that he was unreasonably targeting particular staff. Similarly it would be unreasonable to rule that the Appellant was harassing Porsche through litigation. Undoubtedly the Courts would not allow this in any event. So far as comments posted on the Internet of which Porsche disapprove, we have been provided with no evidence that they have made any attempt to have such content taken down."
Point 136 is interesting also:
"134. The Tribunal finds that, in this case, the public interest in favour of disclosure outweighs that of withholding. We say this because there is a clear public interest in 27 informing drivers of the vehicles in question of the particular engine characteristic. We note that the case made that the DVSA has found there to be no safety defect. However, they do acknowledge that a maximum lag of 2.5 seconds is caused by
this characteristic (as made public in DVSA's response to a complainant, dated 25 April 2012). This lag was still enough to affect the Appellant, who, according to his evidence before this Tribunal was consequently placed in what he regarded as a dangerous position whilst attempting to carry out an overtaking manoeuvre. While it is a subjective assessment, we have no reason to doubt his evidence in this regard."
Point 151 says the Porsche technique applies to other cars:
"151. We acknowledge Mr. Moloney's witness statement at para.8 (p.174) where he sets out that the vehicle in question utilises technology common to many other Porsche products and follow-on technologies and is considered competitively and commercially sensitive for the manufacturer and its third party technology partners."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting stuff. Porsche don;t want information about this throttle lag in the public domain. I think this is utterly wrong. Porsche cars should accelerate with no lag when the throttle is depressed at 30mph and it is ludicrous for it to sell cars which don't.
"2. The request specifically asked for:
a. "... all information held by VOSA [DVSA] regarding the Porsche
Cayman..."
b. "...in particular the VOSA safety evaluation of the vehicle throttle
malfunction."
c. "...all information you have regarding the VOSA test of the Porsche
Cayman throttle malfunction with particular reference to:
the vehicle transmission
the vehicle exhaust system
the vehicle model (Cayman S or Cayman R)
the date and duration of the test
the vehicle VIN number
the location of the test
the gears used in the test
the vehicle speed when the test was performed"
The document includes this text: "copies of correspondence he had obtained, both were sent to a third party who also owns a Cayman R. The letter from Porsche Germany GmbH dated approximately 1st November 2012 makes direct reference to a Cayman R and states that "the entire motor control and in
particular the fuel mixture preparation has been adapted to reduce vehicle noise and emissions". It refers to a test drive of a "comparable Cayman R, which showed the same response, it was stated that this "is the typical state of the series in this model". "
And; "an email dated 25th September 2012 from Porsche Switzerland AG does not mention a Cayman R specifically ... and this also refers to the same engine characteristic put in place to make the vehicle compliant with regulations governing vehicle noise emissions (ECE 51 - 02 United Nations regulation 'Uniform provisions concerning the approval of: Motor vehicles having at least four wheels with regard to their noise emissions')."
Point 25 in the tribunal report says "Porsche was joined to these proceedings on 26 February 2015 at their request and have also provided comprehensive submissions"
Point 44: "The Appellant provided his third submissions, dated 5th May 2015. These again referred to correspondence including confirmation by both Porsche GmbH and Porsche Switzerland AG that the throttle delay is typical in the Cayman R model regardless of the country of sale and that this is a measure taken by the manufacturer to comply with noise emission regulations. The Tribunal is satisfied to the requisite standard of proof that this is genuine and valid correspondence."
Porsche was unhelpful as Points 55 and 56 and 70 show:
"55. Porsche argue that the requested information relates to product safety rather than the environment and that consequently it does not sit within any of the categories of the definition of environmental information under Regulation 2(1). They say that it is the nature of the requested information itself, which determines whether or not it is environmental information rather than the wording of the request. Further, they argue: "Even on the terms of the Appellant's request for information, it is focused upon vehicle safety/alleged throttle malfunction rather than anything environmental in nature." Consequently, they say "...the information in question in this case could not fall under even a wide interpretation of the definition, as the information relates solely to matters of product safety."
"56. Regarding the specific context of the requested information, Porsche argue that the vehicle safety test "...is not an activity which affects or is likely to affect the elements and factors set out in the Regulations."
"70. Porsche argue that the disputed information is about product safety rather than the environment. With respect we say that whilst the central issue is undoubtedly concerned with product safety, the product in question is a motor vehicle. As we have indicated at paras.62-63, motor vehicles have an impact on the environment, even whilst being tested (contrary to their argument), a measure which we find to be within the definition of environmental information."
Points 80 and 106 are interesting:
"80. The Appellant argues that his request is not manifestly unreasonable, as claimed by Porsche, stating that it is not only in his interest to know if this model has a hesitation. He strenuously denies that he has behaved in an inappropriate or vexatious manner in any of his dealings with any of the Respondents."
"106. Porsche also comment that the Appellant has engaged in a long campaign against them both on-line and via the courts in Northern Ireland. They submit that the present information request, when viewed in the light of the relevant context and history, is vexatious within the meaning of FOIA and thus disclosure would be manifestly unreasonable under the EIRs. "
Points 116 and 117 rebut this:
"116. Porsche also claimed that the Appellant's long campaign against them, both on-line and via the courts rendered his request manifestly unreasonable. The Tribunal rejects this argument. "
"117. ... There is no evidence of any harassment or distress, indeed the Appellant made clear in his request that he did not wish to see any personal information. It would therefore be difficult to accept any claim that he was unreasonably targeting particular staff. Similarly it would be unreasonable to rule that the Appellant was harassing Porsche through litigation. Undoubtedly the Courts would not allow this in any event. So far as comments posted on the Internet of which Porsche disapprove, we have been provided with no evidence that they have made any attempt to have such content taken down."
Point 136 is interesting also:
"134. The Tribunal finds that, in this case, the public interest in favour of disclosure outweighs that of withholding. We say this because there is a clear public interest in 27 informing drivers of the vehicles in question of the particular engine characteristic. We note that the case made that the DVSA has found there to be no safety defect. However, they do acknowledge that a maximum lag of 2.5 seconds is caused by
this characteristic (as made public in DVSA's response to a complainant, dated 25 April 2012). This lag was still enough to affect the Appellant, who, according to his evidence before this Tribunal was consequently placed in what he regarded as a dangerous position whilst attempting to carry out an overtaking manoeuvre. While it is a subjective assessment, we have no reason to doubt his evidence in this regard."
Point 151 says the Porsche technique applies to other cars:
"151. We acknowledge Mr. Moloney's witness statement at para.8 (p.174) where he sets out that the vehicle in question utilises technology common to many other Porsche products and follow-on technologies and is considered competitively and commercially sensitive for the manufacturer and its third party technology partners."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting stuff. Porsche don;t want information about this throttle lag in the public domain. I think this is utterly wrong. Porsche cars should accelerate with no lag when the throttle is depressed at 30mph and it is ludicrous for it to sell cars which don't.
Edited by Chris944 on Saturday 17th October 10:47
Chris944 said:
Porsche Caymans can delay throttle response by up to 2.5 seconds at 30mph to comply with European noise legislation rules, according to a report in today's Times newspaper (October 17).
"The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, after complaints by Mr Cieslik and other Porsche owners, tested a Porsche and found a delayed throttle response of up to 2.5 seconds."
The DVSA said, like Porsche, this lag did not constitute a safety risk.
It is refusing to release the results of its investigation.
The Times report says "Porsche tried to block the release of a government safety report on one of its cars by suggesting it would no longer cooperate fully with investigation if the information was disclosed."
Regardless of the technical specifics of this particular case doesn't this yet again say the automotive industry has way to much power in Europe. If it was an aircraft the authorities would say grounded on safety concerns, fully co-operate and give em everything to convince them to let the aircraft fly or deliver new ones again. Sorry if it is a bit un PH but after the recent VAG diesel scandal (still no apologies for the lies and cheating) I just don't trust the automotive industry or that the authorities really have any power over them."The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, after complaints by Mr Cieslik and other Porsche owners, tested a Porsche and found a delayed throttle response of up to 2.5 seconds."
The DVSA said, like Porsche, this lag did not constitute a safety risk.
It is refusing to release the results of its investigation.
The Times report says "Porsche tried to block the release of a government safety report on one of its cars by suggesting it would no longer cooperate fully with investigation if the information was disclosed."
I've just done a completely unscientific test over the last half hour.. Cayman R PDK...
I couldn't get it to have that kind of throttle delay at 30 at all... Tried Auto... No delay.. Push harder...Just drops down and accelerates..
Put into manual... Manual Sport... Manual Sport plus... Just accelerates....
Not sure if it just relates to manuals only but mine has nothing like a 2.5 second delay.
Having said that doing the above on your way to drop the boy off at a party at Jellybeans is not really Autocar testing material..
I couldn't get it to have that kind of throttle delay at 30 at all... Tried Auto... No delay.. Push harder...Just drops down and accelerates..
Put into manual... Manual Sport... Manual Sport plus... Just accelerates....
Not sure if it just relates to manuals only but mine has nothing like a 2.5 second delay.
Having said that doing the above on your way to drop the boy off at a party at Jellybeans is not really Autocar testing material..
Edited by Pauly-b on Saturday 17th October 11:20
Olf said:
I just checked my Z4M and I get immediate throttle response at any speed and any point in the rev range so I can conclude that it's not affected by this BULLs
t! 
If it's programmed like the VAG NoX defeat device you'd have to exactly replicate the conditions of the drive-by noise test to trigger the throttle delay. This would consist of the ECU registering a specified time at a specified load/rpm in a specified gear. You could conceivably drive your car for years without ever subjecting it to these specific parameters. It's just a matter of (bad) luck that you might do so when preparing to overtake a lorry.t! rohrl said:
If it's programmed like the VAG NoX defeat device you'd have to exactly replicate the conditions of the drive-by noise test to trigger the throttle delay. This would consist of the ECU registering a specified time at a specified load/rpm in a specified gear. You could conceivably drive your car for years without ever subjecting it to these specific parameters. It's just a matter of (bad) luck that you might do so when preparing to overtake a lorry.
And you would definitely have to be in completely the wrong gear for overtaking, as there is no chance that any bizarre mapping is in place at 30mph in 2nd gear. Sounds to me like the guy simply floored the throttle in 6th gear at 30mph and was surprised nothing much happened (if it's a manual). Terrible driver blames manufacturer. Not the first time.ORD said:
And you would definitely have to be in completely the wrong gear for overtaking, as there is no chance that any bizarre mapping is in place at 30mph in 2nd gear. Sounds to me like the guy simply floored the throttle in 6th gear at 30mph and was surprised nothing much happened (if it's a manual). Terrible driver blames manufacturer. Not the first time.
Maybe, maybe not. I expect that if someone had posited that VW cars had a NoX defeat device programmed into their ECU a couple of months ago that plenty of sceptics would have denounced them as conspiracists. I don't think we know enough to make a judgement. It's probably wise to wait for more information before condemning him just yet.If this existed, the dozens of Cayman drivers on PH would have gone mental about it a long time ago. It's made up nonsense.
I imagine the DVLA testers stamped on the throttle (in a manual car) at 30mph in 6th gear. Pretty much nothing would happen in that circumstance given that you'd be at around 1000 revs! I imagine it might well take a second or two for any noticeable acceleration to materialise (and you'll knacker the engine while you're at it).
I imagine the DVLA testers stamped on the throttle (in a manual car) at 30mph in 6th gear. Pretty much nothing would happen in that circumstance given that you'd be at around 1000 revs! I imagine it might well take a second or two for any noticeable acceleration to materialise (and you'll knacker the engine while you're at it).
Not very scientific i know but in certain conditions i've noticed that if i kick my foot down, the car almost says "are you sure?" "ok" for maybe a split second, before planting the power down. It's nowhere near 2.5s but it has sometimes made me think there is some software preventing me from being really silly occasionally. that said, it would never be the reason i'm in a dangerous position with an oncoming lorry. That's just bad driving and lack of foresight. If you are attempting overtakes without plenty of space and time and an escape route, then software delay or not you are asking for trouble.
John Cieslik video about the Cayman R throttle response lag problem he encountered :- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qSOm1x9a_Is
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff