Even without the policemens uniforms and pink shirts, it'd be evident that some of us are confused, tired and emotional, and not only about gender. Its understandable. Analogies can be confusing.
Perhaps I can restore calm by picking out the logical thread, in pink if necessary, but in a rather deep, Sean Conneroid voice.
Pink Premise 1: This thread is about a (concept) motorcycle. Cars were introduced as a visual analogy. This is legitimate, but discussing the merits of the cars in their own right is, er...deviant from the topic.
Pink Premise 2: This thread is about whether the motorcycle is "the coolest" (or at least "cool"). I don't really do cool, but I'd contend that its mostly about form rather than substance, so the argument is largely an aesthetic one.
In any case we know bugger-all about the specific performance of this doesn't-really-exist motorcycle (I've seen it credited with 18, 15 and 14 hp, though perhaps at different rpm, dunno) except that, as a 125cc 4-stroke, its likely to be relatively underpowered.
In this aesthetic context, I dissed the motorcyle as an (admittedly mild) example of the prevailing bag o'chisels sportsbike design aesthetic, and offered the Phillipe Stark Aprillia as the sharpest motorcycle design contrast I could think of. Confronted with the Suzuki Cappuchino as a "car analogue" of the KTM125 motorcycle, I offered the KTM X-Bow as a much better visual analogue, which it undeniably is.
Or more simply:-
KTM125 (ugly wee bag o'chisels motorcycle) (=) KTM X-Bow (ugly wee bag o'chisels car)
This does not in any way imply that I think the KTM X-Bow is better than the Suzuki Cappuchino, (which looks a nice wee thing). It just implies that I think the Suzuki Cappuchino is a lousy visual analogue to the KTM125.
Hope thats cleared up at least some of the logical confusion.
We reach for the sky. Neither does civilisation.
(Incidentally, if the search button is your friend, you must have some bloody useless, dysfunctional friends)