The debut of the 2025 Ford Maverick earlier this week brought forth a host of changes as part of the compact pickup’s first refresh, along with a couple of surprises. However, one particular detail that seemed rather strange was the fact that 2025 Ford Maverick pickups equipped with the turbocharged 2.0L I-4 EcoBoost engine actually lost a bit of power – 12 horsepower, down to 238 versus 250 for the outgoing model. Now, we know why that’s the case.
“We’ve added a new gas particulate filter to meet emissions requirements, and this reduces the maximum horsepower that we can deliver,” Dawn McKenzie, manager of Ford’s truck communications, explained to Ford Authority. The concept of particulate filters is nothing new, of course, as The Blue Oval already utilizes them in places like Australia, and just like diesel particulate filters, gas particulate filters work essentially the same way and are placed in a vehicle’s exhaust system to trap pollutants and keep them from exiting the vehicle and harming the environment.
There are a couple of downsides to these gas particulate filters, however, including the fact that they must be paired with fuel that has a lower sulfur content, and in select cases, higher octane fuel is recommended as well. Additionally, the filters can be pricey to replace – as much as $4,000 in some instances.
Regardless, the 2025 Ford Maverick EcoBoost makes a bit less power as a result of this change, and that’s also true of the sporty Lobo, though it does feature some other performance-enhancing features such as the discontinued Edge ST’s seven-speed transmission. All of this comes at a cost as well, as the 2025 Ford Maverick lineup is significantly more expensive than the outgoing model, albeit better equipped, to boot.
We’ll have more on the 2025 Ford Maverick soon, so be sure and subscribe to Ford Authority for more Ford Maverick news and non-stop Ford news coverage.
Comments
How many American cars use a gas particulate filter? 4k replacement cost is insane.
…$4000 to replace? Holy Manure! And it makes for a poorer-performing powerplant?
How can this possibly regarded be regarded as an improvement?
At what interval is it req’d to be replaced??
Just another instance of a meddlesome EPA addressing an imaginary problem, one which is likely so infinitissimally small as to be irrelevant.
Pure BS.
I assure you that air pollution and global warming isn’t an imaginary problem.
The reason the EPA requirements are such a joke is because of the bureaucracy.
Example: EPA makes new strick requirement for building a new factory to pollute less. Which considerably raises the cost to the company. While at the same time the same government allows things to be imported with low tariffs so it forces that company to build their product in China (which has no EPA and pollutes 10x more than the old factory) so the end result is the company getting it’s parts produced for the same price, fewer American jobs, and a lot more global pollution effecting that very real climate change than if they didn’t make the stricter regulations in the first place.
These new systems will be mostly built in China, add thousands to the cost of new cars, and only to reduce a fraction of a percent of vehicle emissions likely resulting in either no change in total pollution or actually a net increase…
Also worth noting, this is a particulate filter, meaning it’s catching larger molecules which would fall to the ground, not the kind of green house gasses that contribute to climate change.
Just FYI – China does have their own version of the EPA and their vehicle emission standards are stricter than the EPA’s. China has been using gasoline particulate filters since 2020 when their China 6 emission standards went into effect. (Europe has been using them since 2014)
You are correct that PM has nothing to do with climate change. It is a local pollutant that causes SMOG and respiratory diseases like asthma.
🤣👍. Air pollution, absolutely. Global warming? Gonna have to do better. It was hot before the dinosaurs died and there were no human factories
It should not need replacement, much like a catalytic convertor doesn’t need replacing, under normal use through 100k+ miles. It’s required to pass the new particulate matter emission regulations which are being phased in over the next several years.
Oh good, so we can offload the $4000 replacement cost onto the lower and lower middle class who are buying cars in the 100k mile range because that’s what they can afford.
Now a days seems like everything is pay more get less.
I would like to think good engineers could come up with a better way to meet emission standards without adding a $4 thousand dollar filter to what is supposed to be an economy truck! This is insane, and we lose hp on top of it. Glad I bought a 22. I think I will be keeping it for a long time in view of all the undesirable change being made since then.
A GPF isn’t nearly as expensive as a DPF, which is likely where the $4k estimate came from.
A GPF is what’s required for a turbo charged DI engine to meet the new PM1 standards. You could go back to a naturally aspirated PFI engine if you would rather have ~100 less HP.
… our go with a hybrid and keep the HP and torque and boost fuel economy. New emission standards will boost the number of hybrids on the market as it has in Europe.
Not sure where they got the $4,000 number for a GPF. A replacement DPF for my 6.6L Duramax is about $2,000 for the part – retail.
Ok, what’s wrong with saying Ford? Why does every article lately have to say the blue oval?
How long before the catalytic converter thieves start stealing these?
Exhaust filters are a nightmare. This 100% makes the Maverick a NO GO. For me. No way in hell I would consider paying $42k for a “cheap” truck and then deal with the hassle that it will become to maintain. Typical stupid Ford decision. I cant remember the last time they did anything that made sense.
The $42,000 is for the range topping Lariat, Tremor, and Lobo models only. The new maverick starts at $26,000. Nobody’s telling you to go buy a fully loaded top of the line maverick.
If i hot one, the first thing I am doing is deleting the GPF. That is just ridiculous. They should’ve left them for California only vehicles.
So I took my Maverick in for it’s scheduled recall. Then drove t500 mikes to see my son. On the way back on a very dangerous road. My truck lost all power. From 80mpg on a bumper to bumper 3 lane freeway to 20. By a miracle I was able to get across 3 lanes to the shoulder. According to the shop (5 hours from my house, 4 hours of run around . Was rented an F-150 to drive home, poor fuel economy compared to my truck. Still trying to get a hold of Ford to see if they will compensate me for the extra $200 it cost me plus all the time because their under warranty vehicle died on me while driving
home. They don’t answer their calls) the sensors were not communicating. This was why I had the recall done to solve that problem. It was a very harrowing situation and unfortunately now I don’t trust my 2023 Maverick to be reliable.
Why did Ford drop the color Silver from the 2025 Maverick?
This added complexity undermines the appeal of this simple (sort of) small truck. Too bad, and I thought Ford had finally figured it out…
This is great news! Petrol particle filters have been required in Europe, China and Australia since 2018. Good to see that the US is joining the rest of the developed world in fighting air pollution.
Remember China is on a massive coal burning power plant expansion. If China was so concerned, these would never had been proposed and constructed. Then again, China needs to bail ojt buddy North Korea by purchasing coal and doing ship to shiptransfers so they can say we never were in the port to load coal.
Petrol particulate filters have never been required in australia.