CA.?? prop.23

No tech discussion, please

Moderator: FORDification

User avatar
FLASH 1
New Member
New Member
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:26 pm
Location: North Carolina, Reidsville

Re: CA.?? prop.23

Post by FLASH 1 »

THIS is what we have experienced We have had 7.3's 6.0's and now a 6.7 Cummins,, the 7.3 very reliable,, 6.0 yes problem I have had 2 and now the 6.7 Cummins,, all 4 trucks have pulled very heavy weights up I-15 out of calif up to Las Vegas, Nevada, up in the hills of Oregon/Wash across the I-40 in Az or up I-17 corridor,, these weights exceed 30,000 lbs with just the last trip 2 weeks ago at 37,855 lbs and what we have said all around that a 6.0 stock air cleanor 4" exhaust will out pull any 7.3 with equal weight and wind drag and by wind drag stand up 2 8' beds on back of a truck andsee waht that does and like I said our 6.0 with that set up went up against all of those broke down Chevys and Dodges but a far as reliablity forget the 6.0,, our average for fuel for every 1/4 was 9.4 with pulling 2 different trailes and our 1 trailer enclosed is a extra 1 1/2 higher than most,, our 6.7 cummins last 1/4 was 9.2 but look at the size F-650 Crew Cab Roll back,, I know when back in 2004 when I got our first 6.0 like wow and even running across Texas told one person if you want to run with this 6.0 better go to Ford and get one :lol: but that me,, the 6.7 Cummins has less power but heck look at the warranties Ford Could not even match Unlimited on Trans for 3 years and 2 years unlimited on Motor then afteryears up can be updated on the basis of mileage on vehicle Just our :2cents:
Tom, where Ford Trucks Rule
1956 Big Window
1964 F-750 Flat Bed
1965 M-100 Mercury
1966 M-350 Mercury
1966 F350 Wrecker
1972 F-350 Crew Cab
1997 F-450 7.3 with 85,000 original miles
2006 F-150 Crew Cab
2008 F-650 Crew Cab Roll Back 6.7 Cummins
2020 Flat Top Peterbilt Roll Back PX-7 Engine
and 2 cars 1968 XLT and 2017 Mustang
User avatar
TheEskimo
Blue Oval Fanatic
Blue Oval Fanatic
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: California, Clearlake
Contact:

Re: CA.?? prop.23

Post by TheEskimo »

Okay, I ain't all that smart on this subject. But since Prop 26 passed, wouldn't that pretty much make any funding to enforce AB32 hard to get?

Tried to read and understand some of this, but Prop 26 I think changes the name of the "fees" they need to enforce AB32 to "taxes" and would make it harder to get as they would need some kinda vote for the "taxes" that they wouldn't have had to have for the"fees"

Can anyone else see my confusion here? :hmm:
-Jason
1972 F250 Camper Special 360ci
1973 F100 Custom 390ci
1985 Thinderbird 302ci (DD)
User avatar
ForingaMex
Blue Oval Fan
Blue Oval Fan
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 8:18 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: CA.?? prop.23

Post by ForingaMex »

dustman_stx wrote: I would also like to point out that, even though the emissions from the truck itself may be less... you need to consider what emissions are involved in the production and delivery of the ~25% more fuel they require.
:yt: I've often wondered why nobody talks about that part of the equation when they talk about lower emissions. It would be interesting to see someone run some numbers.
-Jake
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln

-02 Dodge Ram Quad Cab
-72 Ford F100 LWB 390/C6 (Retired for now till I can rebuild/transform it)
-2000 Ford Windstar (Family Vehicle)
-92 VW Beetle (Mexican)
User avatar
DuckRyder
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4931
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:04 pm
Location: Scruffy City
Contact:

Re: CA.?? prop.23

Post by DuckRyder »

TheEskimo wrote:...But since Prop 26 passed...
It passed? Everything I found said it did not pass?
Robert
1972 F100 Ranger XLT (445/C6/9” 3.50 Truetrac)

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -- Jeff Cooper
User avatar
OldRedFord
Blue Oval Guru
Blue Oval Guru
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:37 pm
Location: Hull GA
Contact:

Re: CA.?? prop.23

Post by OldRedFord »

I too was under the impression that Prop 26 did not pass.

And yes that is 400 hp with all the emissions crap functional.
Tim

1972 F350 flatbed drw c6/390
1967 F600 project truck
User avatar
TheEskimo
Blue Oval Fanatic
Blue Oval Fanatic
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: California, Clearlake
Contact:

Re: CA.?? prop.23

Post by TheEskimo »

According to the SF Chronicle and NY Times Prop 26 squeaked by without much notice. As far as I can tell, it should make it hard for them to do anything with AB32. Didn't even make front page news.
-Jason
1972 F250 Camper Special 360ci
1973 F100 Custom 390ci
1985 Thinderbird 302ci (DD)
Post Reply