<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Autoblog - Comments for Ford Mustang rumors for 2009 and 2012</title>
<link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/20/ford-mustang-rumors-for-2009-and-2012/</link>
<description>Autoblog Comments for Ford Mustang rumors for 2009 and 2012</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Ford Mustang rumors for 2009 and 2012]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/20/ford-mustang-rumors-for-2009-and-2012/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/20/ford-mustang-rumors-for-2009-and-2012/</guid><description><![CDATA[#3. This is the problem with retro-styled cars, what next? How do you make it evolve?<br><br>If it stays the same forever, why buy one? When you style it like a 68 Mustang, what's the next step? A retro 1972? A (horrors) retro Mustang II?<br><br>The current body is nice, and it's helped Ford tremendously, but it can't, and shouldn't last forever.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sep 20th 2006 5:18PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>