<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Autoblog - Comments for </title>
<link>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/26/vantastic-2009-e-series-upgrades/</link>
<description>Autoblog Comments for </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 ]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/26/vantastic-2009-e-series-upgrades/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/26/vantastic-2009-e-series-upgrades/</guid><description><![CDATA[One word: Ugly. I know it is a utilitarian, but why does it have to be ugly? The older versions had a nicer, modern looking front. Here they are trying to bolt a tough-looking front, borrowed from the F-150.<br><br>The Dodge/Freightliner Sprint has a better, proportional look for its front.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard S.]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 26th 2008 12:24AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/26/vantastic-2009-e-series-upgrades/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/26/vantastic-2009-e-series-upgrades/</guid><description><![CDATA[I think (part of) the (sort of) thinking behind the restyled front clip was that the new light assembly sits lower on the fascia, placing the low-beams down at car height.<br><br>I appreciate this greatly. The lower your car is (I drive a Miata), the more obnoxious large pickups and SUVs are; at night, their low-beams look like airport spotlights in your rearview mirror.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[PJ]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 26th 2008 9:43AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/26/vantastic-2009-e-series-upgrades/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/26/vantastic-2009-e-series-upgrades/</guid><description><![CDATA[i forwarded this "blog" article to my father in law who owns a construction company. he also employs a fleet of Eseries vans, 2 Dodge Ram vans, a 350 Superduty, and even a silverado. he read your comment Richard S. and his only comment was "Richard S. must be a chick". the point is, people in the trades WANT an aggressive, bold, strong looking vehicle, not to mention best in class cargo capacity, towing, security features, only commercial vehicle to offer factory installed trailer brake controls, etc. not only is this van series superior as a workhorse, but as far as the commercial industry is concerned, it is also the baddest looking vehicle on the road. <br><br>now have fun being a chick. and driving your honda civic. <br>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[C.W.]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 27th 2008 5:20PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/26/vantastic-2009-e-series-upgrades/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/26/vantastic-2009-e-series-upgrades/</guid><description><![CDATA[First of all, I drive a Nissan 350Z. Second, I hope your father-in-law is not responsible for the interior design or finishing details:  Looking tough does not mean having to look butt-ugly. Case in point was the first updated full-size Dodge Ram pick-up. It had the look of a big rig, but done in  <br>good proportions, thus giving a nice look overall.  The proportions of the new fascia of the E-series does not correspond to the overall design of the van. the Dodge/Freightliner Sprinter accomplishes that, while still looking purposeful and utilitarian.<br><br>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard S.]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 27th 2008 7:52PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>