My comment to this summary and graph is that it is an unfair comparison considering the diesel engine is 400 ccm bigger and turbocharged.
This fact seems to be totally ignored on here constantly.
It is not due to the diesel engine itself that everyone seems to think that it is so much more powerful than the petrol, but due to the turbo. Rip off the turbocharger and see how fast it will move then, or how much it can be remapped. Or, to put it another way, add a turbo to the petrol and leave it an 1.8 L, then we can compare. I remember very well the happy 80's when I got a (petrol) Mitsubishi Colt Turbo 82 mod. That was great fun, 106 hp - 0-100 km/h around 10 sec. and top speed around 200 km/h was extreme performance in such a little car those days. It was like driving a go-cart.
Also, the summary should have said something about the disadvanges for the diesel in cold weather. It is a well known fact that diesel engines don't like wintery conditions very well.
Also, here in Norway none of them comes with a particle filter (
DPF), so many asthmatics in the bigger cities/suburbs are afraid of the vague soot particles due to the increased diesel car sale.
And even if they had
DPF they are still afraid - the particle only gets smaller and may damage your lungs even more.
In my opinion Diesel engines are not as environmental friendly as the polititicians are trying to indoctrinate us. They might know something about politics, but they dont know much about car engines.
