Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Slow
Love a good debate lol 
My point was about refinement of drive trains used, and the technology used in them to create the same. Not anything else.
You point in relation to Rolls Royce and Bentley, the reason they can't be matched for refinement, as you state, is because of the new technological advancements used in their cars.
Do you think they use the same suspension and the same chassis they did 40 decades ago? Or the same engines? Rolls have been powered by BMW since 2003. Just because the engine displacement in the current phantom V12 is "6.75" does not mean it is the same engine as the "6.75" engine in the Phantom from the 70's, which wasn't even a V12, but a V8. Same for Bentley, a VW group Twin turbo W12. I don't recall Bentley having such an engine 30 years ago. So your comment in relation to that is irrelevant. |
I'll make one last effort to remove your confusion in regard to "refinement" being synonymous with "high tech". Then I'll give up. First of all, I used RR & Bentley without regard to any particular model year. The old V8 replaced, as you say, in the Rolls in 2003, and more recently in the Bentley, was in no way unrefined. It was big and heavy, and harder to tune for worldwide emissions, so it got replaced.
Let me use another example. The SMG abomination BMW implemented a few years back was an extremely good track choice, but on the street is was a serious contender for "World's Worst Automatic" with bronze filigree and oak leaf cluster. High tech? Yes. Refined? Not a chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Slow
As for the Audi remark, the technology does matter as it was the basis of my argument, again, not performance numbers.
|
My reference to the Audi was in regard to my assertion that high tech only matters when it matters (from my personal point of view). The five-valve design was arguably high tech, but offered no advantage over more plebian offerings, either in performance, mileage or emissions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Slow
"Cocktail party talk"? Haha I like that, will have to try cocktails one day lol.
The same argument springs to mind when you mention how fast and powerful the CTSV is in a discussion on refinement and tech, which I will remind you was and is NOT the basis of my point.
|
Pardon me. You are taking the position that high tech matters in its own right, while I am taking the position that high tech only matters when it offers an advantage. In this regard, the Cadillac competes straight up with more high-tech offerings, so from my point of view, high tech doesn't seem to matter in this particular comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Slow
Yes, the CTS-V is heavier, I didn't design it, if Cadillac want to make a heavy car and compare it to lighter ones and it as a result is not as fuel efficient, then my point is not only valid, but fair game. The comparison on price is a good one, if your buying one. However the GTR could also be included under this rule, which would absolutely walk all of these cars.
|
In fact, Cadillac positioned the car against the M5 at announcement, showing how it could pretty handily outperform that car. The
marketplace decided that the CTS-V was also an M3 competitor, however. By the way, compared with the M5/M6, the Caddy does better on fuel economy, with both the bimmers at 11/17, city/highway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Slow
The car fits the almost exact criteria for the M6, bar price, which based on specifications, not which you can afford, I would compare it to. However, the GTR is compared to the 911 turbo, R8 V10 etc despite the big price gap, purely because it is in the same ball park, it is a super car after all.
|
As an aside, the GT-R is another example of high tech and refinement being completely different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Slow
And finally, your point on that there are no losers...
I agree |
Well, that's the main point after all, isn't it. Great cars all.