Originally Posted by roman
All this "surge of power", "leaving petrols behind at traffic lights" blah-blah is because we compare turbo charged diesels to normal petrols.
I don't know much about the other points, but for cheaper cars, we should keep in mind that we pay more excise duty when the displacement of petrols is more than 1200 cc, while we pay the same duty when the displacement is more than 1500
cc for diesels. Now, the best one can manage with the 12% excise slab, is 1199 cc turbocharged petrol, while for the diesels the figure is 1499 cc turbocharged. IMO
, a 1499 cc Diesel engine should at least be equivalent to a 1199 cc petrol engine. Take the case of VW Polo GT twins. Both take about 11 secs. to reach 100 km/h. (Not the exact fig, but I think it should suffice.). Even in this competition, the TSI is heavily aided by the 7 speed DSG.
Let us say that there is a 1500 cc Polo TSI. Now there would be few buyers who would spend close to 11 big ones (Remember, you pay 24% for any petrol car whose displacement is > 1200 cc... Correct me if I'm wrong) for a petrol hatchback
, whose fuel costs are a bit too much, isn't it.
The same is not true for more premium cars, but the turbocharged petrol cars below 20L can be counted of fingers. Tata Revotron: Zest, Bolt. VW TSI: Polo GT TSI, Vento. Fiat T-jet: Linea T-jet. Ford: Ecosport EcoBoost. (Not including Audi here.) I can't recall anything else. While most diesels are turbocharged. It is true however, that diesels are more expensive then their petrol counterparts.
Above all this, one can still argue that Petrol-automatic combos outnumber Diesel-automatic combos.
Hope I was being clear here
And Happy Independence Day