My 11/25 built Badlands Sasquatch 2.0L has a GPF

[Wixzzy77]

Build Date 5/25, delivered to Minnesota

Sponsored

 

[Wixzzy77]

I don't believe that's correct. It may be small, but I don't believe there is no loss. Just the fact that there is an added substrate will add some amount of backpressure. As it becomes loaded with soot, the backpressure increases. That's how/why the pressure sensors are used to determine if it's clogged or not. It's the same reason people would put "off-road exhaust systems" on their cars, to remove the catalysts ,which reduces back pressure and increases horsepower. In addition, these GPFs are designed with alternating plugs at the end of each of the "tubes" in the ceramic substrate, forcing the exhaust gasses to flow through the porous walls as shown by the drawing below.

Someone may market it as no reduction in HP, but that would be very surprising considering the very method used to determine if the GPF is overloaded or plugged is effectively a measurement of backpressure, and the laws of physics say backpressure reduces flow, which reduces HP (peak anyway). There may be no reduction in peak "advertised" HP, but I'll bet if you ran two tests on a dyno engine - one with and one without a GPF (especially one that has some soot in it), you could measure the difference.

 

[incavulator]

Yeah. That aligns pretty closely with what I was suggesting above and I agree with most of what ChatGPT concluded. I said it may be small, but probably not zero. These are unibody SUVs and in reading the posts on this forum, many owners are looking for fuel economy. I wouldn't expect too many in this crowd to be running frequent wide open throttle accelerations or spending much time at the drag strip in these vehicles. Therefore, I think it makes sense to say most people won't notice it.

You have to remember those results come from ChatGPT and it pulls its results from numerous online sources. As mentioned in my previous post, there is not a lot of public information on GPFs because they are still relatively new to the market. I'm guessing ChatGPT got that 2-3HP estimate based in part if not primarily from the Porsche forum, where there was (allegedly) some testing that showed about a 5HP gain on a particular vehicle when the GPF was removed, but that was a v-engine with dual exhaust that was probably already designed with performance in mind, so likely less restrictive, and with an unknown level of soot.

I was (and still am) reluctant to estimate HP losses only because there are a lot of unknowns. Seeing that the BS BL is a relatively small displacement turbocharged 4-cyl making an impressive 250HP (give or take for your specific model year), and utilizes a single exhaust system, it's hard to predict what the actual losses would be without more info, but to get 250HP out of a 2.0L, they're pushing a lot of airflow through that single exhaust and that is going to make it more sensitive to restriction. In addition, the turbocharger is driven by exhaust gas flow, so that amplifies the impact of any additional exhaust restriction/backpressure.

If you're looking for publicly available info to estimate HP loss, DPFs (diesel particulate filters) are really similar to GPFs. There seems to be more data on those, as they've been on diesel engines for a longer period of time. That data seems to indicate the removal of those can increase power on the order of 8-12% of peak power. I believe DPFs are usually larger than GPFs because diesels make more soot than gas engines, but diesel soot is different than gas soot, so I won't attempt to guess if GPFs would have more or less impact. It's just additional data from a very similar product that has been in the field for a longer period of time, so there's more information available for these.

Finally, the HP loss is DEFINITELY a function of soot loading, and ChatGPT didn't specify what soot load it used for it's estimate (presumably zero, which is best case scenario). If you dig deeper and ask it more questions, it will tell you you can expect losses to be 0-2% (0-5HP) of peak power with no soot load, 2-5% (5-12HP) of peak power with moderate soot load, and >5% (12HP+) if severely loaded. I'm not questioning or confirming these estimates. I simply stated the horsepower impact of adding a device which increases restriction/backpressure like a GPF in the exhaust system of an engine like the one in the Bronco Sport BL is very unlikely truly "zero" and I stand by that statement. I do agree it could be relatively small in the best case scenario.

 

[Goughy]

Built for Goodyear, AZ, delivery. Finished building 11/14/2025.

 

[pixlpush]

Built for Goodyear, AZ, delivery. Finished building 11/14/2025.

It looks like you don’t have a GFP. The highlighted line is what you want to look at. The second entry on that line on mine says “TWC+GPF” or three way cat + gasoline particulate filter.

I’d still look underneath to confirm but I have issues

 

[pixlpush]

Build Date 5/25, delivered to Minnesota

you look like you don’t have a GFP. No “TWC+GFP” on the sticker.

 

[Goughy]

It looks like you don’t have a GFP. The highlighted line is what you want to look at. The second entry on that line on mine says “TWC+GPF” or three way cat + gasoline particulate filter.

I’d still look underneath to confirm but I have issues

I haven't groveled underneath to confirm that there is no GPF, but according to the label that is what I expect.

Interesting that two vehicles (mine and jkernitzki,s) were both built for Arizona with different specs

 

[Dude]

I suspect the vehicle that took forever to get delivered was an out of state vehicle procured by the dealership to satisfy the customer

 

[wireman]

Crawled under my BL to verify no GPF. Peoples Republic of California, C.A.R.B. state.

My build date is 1-15-2025. No GPF. Photo attached.

It wouldn't bother me if there was one.

Those who have it are just ahead of the curve.

 

[pixlpush]

We had a warm dry day yesterday and I decided to do my first oil change. While I was under there I took some better photos and a video of the GPF. Interestingly it seems like there’s not a resonator past the GPF. Anyway here’s what it looks like under there.

I’m planning on installing a JCR catalytic converter skid. As expected it’s going to need to be modified a bit because the GPF is longer than the cat. I’m may get away with just cutting a bit if the rear of the skid. I’m waiting on a couple of parts before I can install it so more on that later.

 

[Stircrazy]

I wonder if Canada doesn't require them?

we have no such foolish requirments up here . we have DPF's though.. I wonder how often they regen, my deisel truck burns a gal of diesel for each regen and does it when ever it fills up or every 550ish miles, which ever comes first. for me to get rid of it I need different tuning or it goes limp mode, I would emagin that would be the same for a GPF

it always gets me that california adopts europen emission rules, but yet they won't conform to europen fuel standards, at least canada conforms to the lubracation requirments in diesel, which is why we have a fraction of the CP4 failues the US has.

Sponsored