Comments about 'a generation bought up on torquey turbo diesels' are right, but surely comparing naturally aspirated petrol engines with turbo diesels is comparing apples and oranges? (a diesel without a turbo ain't anything to write home about either
). I don't know why it has taken car makers so long to introduce even low pressure turbos into their engines which will give more torque at lower rpm, compared with complexity and cost of modern diesels a turbo petrol engine has long been a no brainer especially with modern ceramics to handle high temperatures seen in turbos.
Power is the 'size of the bang x number of bangs per minute' - main reason Diesels have more torque is bigger flywheel and longer longer crank throw (required to get high compression ratio) - longer stroke engines, including petrol always have more torque, but higher piston speed limits rev range to around 4K, and that is known as 'a high speed diesel'
. Because of emissions diesel car engines will be a rarity in 5 to 10 years time and electrically assisted hybrids can get high torque at low revs, and don't need that horrible, expensive and unreliable 'dual mass flywheel' that diesels must have to protect transmission from low rev power pulses that diesels produce.
Most women I know never rev above about 2K when driving (except when pulling away sometimes and slipping clutch at about 4K LOL), they think they are damaging the engine if they exceed that level, I suppose the Guardian bimbo is from the same mindset of women who do not love or understand engines but become a motoring writer as a break from making tea in the office.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/yougov-polling-blog/2014/nov/18/yougov-profiles-the-nations-newspaper-readers