<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: E925 V995 X50 Pro78 RX65e &#8211; extreme K band test &#8211; Forward</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.radardetectorexperts.com/escort-8500-radar-detector/e925-v995-x50-pro78-rx65e-extreme-k-band-test-forward/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.radardetectorexperts.com/escort-8500-radar-detector/e925-v995-x50-pro78-rx65e-extreme-k-band-test-forward</link>
	<description>Radar Detector Reviews</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:29:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: proct0r</title>
		<link>http://www.radardetectorexperts.com/escort-8500-radar-detector/e925-v995-x50-pro78-rx65e-extreme-k-band-test-forward/comment-page-1#comment-606</link>
		<dc:creator>proct0r</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:37:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radardetectorexperts.com/escort-8500-radar-detector/e925-v995-x50-pro78-rx65e-extreme-k-band-test-forward#comment-606</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;Pro 78 was 2nd best ...&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt; Pro 78 was 2nd best. All that say Pro 78&#039;s K detection is less than a 8500 X50....well, it looks up to par.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Pro 78 was 2nd best &#8230;</b> <br /> Pro 78 was 2nd best. All that say Pro 78&#8242;s K detection is less than a 8500 X50&#8230;.well, it looks up to par.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

