2.0L - Ecoboost downgraded to 238/HP ?

[Probity]

Sandbag Farley? Does Ford have a choice whether or not to fit it?

In case I missed a 'sarcasm alert' - Sandbag Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
sandbag - to hit or stun with or as if with a sandbag, to coerce by crude means, to conceal or misrepresent one's true position, potential, or intent especially in order to gain an advantage over.

An analyst did it to Farley at the 2Q24 earnings call with a financial question ("why isn't Ford doing stock buybacks", when he (the analyst, and everybody else on the call) knew the answer (because of Ford family stock ownership).

The new EPA 0.5 mg/mile PM rule is for the 2027 and beyond period. Whatever GPF they put on the '25 Mav EB doesn't need to meet that standard. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't I don't know.

Only a couple of possibilities in my thinking:

1. The '25 Mav GPF actually does meet the new 2027 EPA standard. I'm very skeptical, but hey who knows?
2. The 'new' 2.0 EB engine everyone seems convinced will be a combo MPFI/GDI for some reason doesn't even meet the current 2014 EPA Tier 3 standards (for NMOG+NOX and/or PM). I'd bet serious $ that's not the case ('25 Mav PM and NMOG+NOX should be improved over '24 Mav EB if they added MPFI to the '25). Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (Final Rule) (theicct.org)
3. '25 Mav EB owners will effectively be USA GPF beta testers for Ford. Dunno, doubt this but...
4. All MY2025 Ford ICE engines will have GPF because........? Seriously doubt this too.

Sponsored

 

[Gonzo chris]

In case I missed a 'sarcasm alert' - Sandbag Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
sandbag - to hit or stun with or as if with a sandbag, to coerce by crude means, to conceal or misrepresent one's true position, potential, or intent especially in order to gain an advantage over.

An analyst did it to Farley at the 2Q24 earnings call with a financial question ("why isn't Ford doing stock buybacks", when he (the analyst, and everybody else on the call) knew the answer (because of Ford family stock ownership).

The new EPA 0.5 mg/mile PM rule is for the 2027 and beyond period. Whatever GPF they put on the '25 Mav EB doesn't need to meet that standard. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't I don't know.

Only a couple of possibilities in my thinking:

1. The '25 Mav GPF actually does meet the new 2027 EPA standard. I'm very skeptical, but hey who knows?
2. The 'new' 2.0 EB engine everyone seems convinced will be a combo MPFI/GDI for some reason doesn't even meet the current 2014 EPA Tier 3 standards (for NMOG+NOX and/or PM). I'd bet serious $ that's not the case ('25 Mav PM and NMOG+NOX should be improved over '24 Mav EB if they added MPFI to the '25). Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (Final Rule) (theicct.org)
3. '25 Mav EB owners will effectively be USA GPF beta testers for Ford. Dunno, doubt this but...
4. All MY2025 Ford ICE engines will have GPF because........? Seriously doubt this too.

So perhaps, perhaps, they could wait two more years to do it but who knows. It's also possible as they were doing the retooling for this engine and changing many things including adding a port injector it makes more sense to incorporate this now rather than add it in 2 years

 

[colinl]

I too did a little looking into this. Generally agree that Euro/Aussie vehicles comparing pre/post GPF didn't lose fuel economy or much HP. Current Euro 6 emissions spec (and upcoming Euro 7) look to have the same PM (particulate mass) and PN (particulate number) requirements - except - the big change in Euro 7 is requiring PN covering particles less than 10 nm (nanometers) vs 23 nm in Euro 6 (smaller ultrafines do more lung damage).

The Euro specs and EPA specs regarding PM are an apples-to-oranges comparison, can't directly correlate them. Euro 6/7 use PM and PN. Current (now) EPA Tier 3 regs (from 2014) call for PM 3 mg/miles (for the FTP dyno test) and 10 mg/mile (for the US06 dyno test). The new EPA regs (2027 onward) call for PM 0.5 mg/mile or less - but - no specified PN requirement. The Euro requirement (4.5 mg/km) is 7.24 mg/mile. But the EPA (and generally the auto folks) acknowledge that dropping from 3 or 10 mg/mile to 0.5 mg/mile is so severe that it will effectively 'capture' knocking down PN to the Euro standard or better.

All the blurbs I've seen about GPF cost from EPA or Reuters or whoever is pretty much complete BS. The EPA used one of their fancy cost models (Omega?), and came up with a range of numbers (depends on engine size and GPF location of course) that from memory were all less than $200. This was just the cost of the ceramic/whatever thingy, not the pressure sensor system, OBD requirements, etc (it wasn't a 'GPF systems cost'). The automakers, in their comments to EPA before it became a "final' rule, rarely gave specific GPF costs (Hyundai an exception), but the points they did uniformly stress were:

*with the new EPA 0.5 mg/mile requirement, it likely won't be plug-and-play (i.e. taking a GPF from a current Euro model and slapping it onto an equivalent US model likely won't fly). I have no idea if the GPF system on the 2025 Maverick EB is to be lifted from a euro system and slapped onto the new 2.0, or if it's an entirely new GPF system. The new EPA rule isn't officially effective until 2027 so the 2025 Mav may not even meet the 0.5 mg/mile stand. I don't know and currently no one other than Ford might know. The 0.5 mg/mile standard is a whole new ballgame.

* all auto folks took issue with being able to measure 0.5 mg/mile standard accurately and with repeatability. They said they currently couldn't do it, EPA said yeah we've looked at data and think you're overstating your issues.

*the OBD requirements in the final rule is causing issues for the automakers.

*some (luckily only a few) manufacturers noted that their US models might need entire exhaust system changes. That's certainly not trivial wrt cost.

*Hyundai: "HMG emphasizes hardware changes will be necessary for the proposed 0.5mg/mi PM standard, and there will be packaging modification of after-treatment hardware to allow the addition of GPF and pressure sensors. Engine calibration will be required to account for increased backpressure. In fact, HMG estimates that just the additional hardware (cc-GPF, catalyst, sensors, valves, etc.) needed to comply with Tier 4 requirements will range from $500- $800 USD per vehicle. This estimated increase solely accounts for material costs, and does not include the additional costs involved with investments in technology development of the new hardware."

It will be a while before details are known. Even if I somehow coerced a JP Morgan type attending the next Ford quarterly earnings meeting to sandbag Farley or Lawler with questions like "what do you expect the added cost/vehicle to be once GPF systems are fitted on US models?" or "will the '25 Maverick with GPF meet the new EPA 0.5 mg/mile requirement?", I doubt they'd answer.

well thought out, but honestly for me it's pretty simple. I still want a Lobo. way before my order arrives, magazines, YouTube content creators and probably a few people lucky enough to get a first build week truck will answer the question of if the truck is actually slower than my22-24.

if it is slower AND you can't easily modify it, I can always just walk away from my order.

but I think it'll be no issue on modified trucks. I mean, sure. just like diesels, a delete would help. but only idiots would risk it after the EPA fined and jailed diesel delete tuning shops.

 

[Phimosis]

I too did a little looking into this. Generally agree that Euro/Aussie vehicles comparing pre/post GPF didn't lose fuel economy or much HP. Current Euro 6 emissions spec (and upcoming Euro 7) look to have the same PM (particulate mass) and PN (particulate number) requirements - except - the big change in Euro 7 is requiring PN covering particles less than 10 nm (nanometers) vs 23 nm in Euro 6 (smaller ultrafines do more lung damage).

The Euro specs and EPA specs regarding PM are an apples-to-oranges comparison, can't directly correlate them. Euro 6/7 use PM and PN. Current (now) EPA Tier 3 regs (from 2014) call for PM 3 mg/miles (for the FTP dyno test) and 10 mg/mile (for the US06 dyno test). The new EPA regs (2027 onward) call for PM 0.5 mg/mile or less - but - no specified PN requirement. The Euro requirement (4.5 mg/km) is 7.24 mg/mile. But the EPA (and generally the auto folks) acknowledge that dropping from 3 or 10 mg/mile to 0.5 mg/mile is so severe that it will effectively 'capture' knocking down PN to the Euro standard or better.

All the blurbs I've seen about GPF cost from EPA or Reuters or whoever is pretty much complete BS. The EPA used one of their fancy cost models (Omega?), and came up with a range of numbers (depends on engine size and GPF location of course) that from memory were all less than $200. This was just the cost of the ceramic/whatever thingy, not the pressure sensor system, OBD requirements, etc (it wasn't a 'GPF systems cost'). The automakers, in their comments to EPA before it became a "final' rule, rarely gave specific GPF costs (Hyundai an exception), but the points they did uniformly stress were:

*with the new EPA 0.5 mg/mile requirement, it likely won't be plug-and-play (i.e. taking a GPF from a current Euro model and slapping it onto an equivalent US model likely won't fly). I have no idea if the GPF system on the 2025 Maverick EB is to be lifted from a euro system and slapped onto the new 2.0, or if it's an entirely new GPF system. The new EPA rule isn't officially effective until 2027 so the 2025 Mav may not even meet the 0.5 mg/mile stand. I don't know and currently no one other than Ford might know. The 0.5 mg/mile standard is a whole new ballgame.

* all auto folks took issue with being able to measure 0.5 mg/mile standard accurately and with repeatability. They said they currently couldn't do it, EPA said yeah we've looked at data and think you're overstating your issues.

*the OBD requirements in the final rule is causing issues for the automakers.

*some (luckily only a few) manufacturers noted that their US models might need entire exhaust system changes. That's certainly not trivial wrt cost.

*Hyundai: "HMG emphasizes hardware changes will be necessary for the proposed 0.5mg/mi PM standard, and there will be packaging modification of after-treatment hardware to allow the addition of GPF and pressure sensors. Engine calibration will be required to account for increased backpressure. In fact, HMG estimates that just the additional hardware (cc-GPF, catalyst, sensors, valves, etc.) needed to comply with Tier 4 requirements will range from $500- $800 USD per vehicle. This estimated increase solely accounts for material costs, and does not include the additional costs involved with investments in technology development of the new hardware."

It will be a while before details are known. Even if I somehow coerced a JP Morgan type attending the next Ford quarterly earnings meeting to sandbag Farley or Lawler with questions like "what do you expect the added cost/vehicle to be once GPF systems are fitted on US models?" or "will the '25 Maverick with GPF meet the new EPA 0.5 mg/mile requirement?", I doubt they'd answer.

Good job on the research. So yeah, it’s still a little premature to say how bad this will be for US performance and price. The upside is that it is working in Europe without choking the engines like 1970’s smog controls and it’s not bankrupting them from switching to expensive and exotic technologies like catalytic converters, 4 valves per cylinder, variable cam timing/lift, electric power steering, air bags, direct injection, or turbo charging. All of those are much more expensive and complicated than a GPF, but automakers rolled with the punches and we expect those technologies as standard now.

 

[rlhdweman]

Does anyone know if the 'new' engine is like the previous one, runs fine on 87, but max performance/towing recommends 91.

 

[colinl]

Does anyone know if the 'new' engine is like the previous one, runs fine on 87, but max performance/towing recommends 91.

2025 Maverick Technical Specifications pdf released on 7/31/24 has an asterisk which shows the ecoboost 2.0 horsepower and torque ratings are based on premium fuel.

Owner's manual probably will say that or something similar.

 

[MoeMav]

It isn’t the engine. It’s the particulate filter they added to the exhaust system. The effect is lower HP and torque. Reporting is has to be coupled with lower sulfur (higher octane) fuel. So you get the double whammy of higher fuel costs and more of it required. You think government regulation might affect us all?

 

[Bigfoot7262]

So 2025 offers no FWD only 2.0l Ecoboost? Only available AWD?
Those of us with a heavy foot do not approve.
And I thought the reason that the hybrid was no longer the std. powertrain was because they couldn't make enough to meet demand?
I hate to say it, but so far there's nothing in the 2025 changes I like. And it's just a matter of time before someone like Toyota makes a similar unibody truck, so Ford better pay attention...

 

[colinl]

So 2025 offers no FWD only 2.0l Ecoboost? Only available AWD?
Those of us with a heavy foot do not approve.
And I thought the reason that the hybrid was no longer the std. powertrain was because they couldn't make enough to meet demand?
I hate to say it, but so far there's nothing in the 2025 changes I like. And it's just a matter of time before someone like Toyota makes a similar unibody truck, so Ford better pay attention...

I'm trying to make sense of your concerns.

do you have a fwd ecoboost and if you do, are you saying that heavy footed (aggressive?) drivers favor fwd?

 

[Bigfoot7262]

Yup, 2.0l eco with FWD.
I'm betting a FWD ecoboost gets to 60mph faster than AWD on flat dry pavement.
Anyone know how much weight the AWD system adds?

 

[Tom 71 Maverick 24]

After running a fairly well-tuned 3.5 EB F-150, I think I'll stick with AWD. Traction is action.

 

[Mike1597]

If you can believe Motor Trend.
Outside of California the 2025 2.0 turbo makes the same hp as the pre 2025 model year. IDK this makes sense to me since this new emissions filter is related to California emissions requirements. The way I interpret this article Ford decided to use the California HP rating for all 50 states rather than document different hp ratings by state.

Clip from MT article 2025 Ford Maverick Prices, Reviews, and Photos - MotorTrend
Ford also offers the Maverick with a 2.0-liter turbo-four, this year rated at 238 hp and 277 lb-ft. On paper, this is less potent than last year's 250 hp. In practice, the 2025 Maverick makes the same power as previously, just the rating number has changed to align with requirements related to California emissions.

 

[Blue_Max]

Yup, 2.0l eco with FWD.
I'm betting a FWD ecoboost gets to 60mph faster than AWD on flat dry pavement.
Anyone know how much weight the AWD system adds?

Why are you betting that? Weight transfer under acceleration is to the rear. That means you lose traction up front. If you're spinning the front tires with FWD, you're not going quicker than a vehicle that can supplement traction with the rear wheels.

 

[Guv]

We have a 2019 Escape with a 2.0 and fwd. It is very traction limited, if burning rubber is your thing it’ll sure do it.
It would be interesting to see two Ecoboost Mavericks, one awd and the other fwd at the drag strip.
From a stoplight I would wager the awd would walk off. Too much garbage on the road surface.

 

[Bigfoot7262]

I'm just basing that off times I've seen from reviews over the years. I'd like to see two Identical Mavs in FWD & AWD go for it side by side. Anyone know the front/rear weight bias in a Mav?
If wheelspin off the line is an issue, AWD takes it. But my Mav isn't lighting up the tires on takeoff on dry flat pavement.

Sponsored