JUMPS sensor failure rates
Many buyers have questions about sensor reliability, warranty, in-service experience etc. Since the JUMPS sensor was developed by enthusiasts for enthusiasts we want to provide full transparency. There is of course no such thing as a perfectly reliable device, especially when installing complicated electrical devices in a hostile environment, despite employing a robust design, high quality parts followed by extensive testing.
The information below reflects buyer reported issues based on nearly one thousand delivered sensors from when JUMPS started in January 2025 until May 2026. This page will be updated if there is a significant change in the data.
Summary:
- Very low distance sensor failure rate.
- Virtually non-existent calibration failure rate.
- Speed-sensor failures are limited to early production units. No failures reported after implementation of manufacturing changes in 2025.
Distance sensor failures:
There have been three reported failures with the distance sensor, all replaced under warranty.
- One was due to a failure of the internal circuit board
- One was due to a failure of a single capacitor to a closed circuit.
- One appeared to have suffered electro-static damage during installation, likely due to poor practices handling a sensitive electronic component.
Since the data does not indicate any weakness in the sensor design, this has not changed since market introduction. There have been several manufacturing process changes to improve production quality and consistency though.
Distance sensor calibrations issues:
There has only been one report of a sensor not calibrating. This was with a large workshop in Europe with significant experience in repairing PDK transmissions. It was on an early model 987, and the problem was corrected by installing an OEM sensor. The issue occurred one more time on another 987 in their shop. In this instance they upgraded the PDK TCU software and the calibration problem was immediately corrected (this was never attempted on the first car so it’s unclear if it would have corrected the issue). Why? There is no clear explanation, but it would seem that changes to the calibration routines over time have helped eliminate some calibration issues.
As recently reported by a workshop in the US, that is now using the JUMPS sensor, another aftermarket sensor, which they used previously, results in approximately 30% problematic installations. These were either due to wiring/soldering issues or failure to calibrate.
Speed sensor failures:
Whilst the speed sensor is less complicated than the distance sensor, this is where most failures have occurred. Approximately a dozen issues have been reported and replaced under warranty.
These failures affected early build sensors and were due to an internal sensor wiring getting too close to the aluminium housing, and hence electrically shorting the sensor. Whilst this is all checked numerous times during production, it would seem that after installation, the heat cycles and consequent natural expansion/contraction, resulted in a short. After the failure mode was fully understood, several production and design changes were incorporated to ensure the issue was eliminated. Since these changes there have been no reported failures.
Social media reports
There has been some incorrect information spread on social media and other places regarding speed sensor design, eddy currents, phase shifting, etc. Please be assured this is non-factual bogus nonsense. It’s unclear whether the individuals spreading this false information know anything about the inner workings of the PDK speed sensor. Their claims may be valid for other, older style automatic transmission speed sensors, or those using very basic speed sensor elements for the PDK, but it certainly doesn’t apply to the JUMPS sensor.
There are some speed sensing elements available for applications like the PDK that use Hall Effect technology, and this might be the source of confusion. The speed sensor elements used in the JUMPS speed sensor is a very sophisticated (and expensive) design made by a US company. It uses a far more advanced technology that is approximately 50 times more sensitive than a Hall Effect sensor that might be otherwise used.
This company has confirmed the alleged eddy current/aluminium shielding issue DOES NOT affect the sensor they produce.
It’s unfortunate that these types of non-factual claims are made with no obvious motive other than to discredit others who have developed solid products. Clearly, if these claims were correct, there would have been numerous reports of issues. No reports have been received by JUMPS despite extensive user base experience, including many installations on track vehicles in the highest performing platforms.