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.
As for the Audi remark, the technology does matter as it was the basis of my argument, again, not performance numbers.
"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.
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.
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.
And finally, your point on that there are no losers...
I agree