<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Autoblog - Comments for Dead Again: WSJ says PT Cruiser indeed short lived</title>
<link>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/18/dead-again-wsj-says-pt-cruiser-indeed-short-lived/</link>
<description>Autoblog Comments for Dead Again: WSJ says PT Cruiser indeed short lived</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 Dead Again: WSJ says PT Cruiser indeed short lived]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/18/dead-again-wsj-says-pt-cruiser-indeed-short-lived/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/18/dead-again-wsj-says-pt-cruiser-indeed-short-lived/</guid><description><![CDATA[As others have stated, low 20s is common in a PT.  That's not efficient.  That's not even close to efficient.  My Cooper S gets 30 mpg getting run really hard.  My wife's A3 nets her 26-27 mpg.  WTF are you driving that a PT's 21 mpg seems efficient?]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[YouFaceTheTick]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Nov 18th 2007 11:14AM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>