Yes and no. Again, a non-turbo SR22 will do a solid 170 knots at 12.5 GPH at FL110. I fly this way all the time. So, the TB20 (while, I say again, it does have a good blend of qualities) does certainly not "set the mark" nowadays in the SEP sector. But, and I agree with that, it is not vastly inferior to an SR22. So yes, in order to really move to the next step, you would have to pay a lot more.
We all love our own aircraft. Ultimately in the high end piston single market you pay more money for more speed and icing or pressurisation.
TB20s, Cirrus (Cirri?), Bonanzas and PA-46 are all great. People who want to go faster or higher will pay more for an aircraft that does it than the % change.
Peter, and SR22 is not a sideways step from a TB20. That is silly. It is a faster more capable plane. You may not want to pay the premium for it but that is a cost/benefit question. A PA-46 is undoubtedly "better" than a TB-20 but of course it is MUCH more expensive.
Again, a non-turbo SR22 will do a solid 170 knots at 12.5 GPH at FL110
IAS or TAS?
more capable plane
Exactly how "more capable"?
TB20s, Cirrus (Cirri?), Bonanzas and PA-46 are all great. People who want to go faster or higher will pay more for an aircraft that does it than the % change.
Maybe they can fly 1960 Bellanca 260s like my friend who bought one in 2012. About $32,000, I think. It does 170 knots or so with its mid-time IO-470, at 11 gph or thereabouts. He's been flying it here and there, IFR and otherwise. Right now I notice the landing gear is spread around the hangar but that won't last too long. It's a nice plane.
Don't hold me to the numbers... I'm not flying the Cardboard Constellation, just watching happily.
More types is better :-)
You should read some of the stuff on the Cirrus user group
Just a good-natured jab, Peter! 
I actually love the Socata products. Classy design & fantastic handling qualities. Just wished they'd kept the TB20/21 production going. A contemporary G1000 panel would have been fantastic.
If they'd kept working on the SMA diesel (and I'm sure they could have worked out the kinks), it'd have been a complete game changer. Imagine, Jet A & +1600nm range...
It still does suprise me however how much more fuel people in the USA are burning for only an ever so slightly higher speed.
That's definitely not a US-only phenomenon. I would say most (?) pilots tends to fixate on top cruise speed ahead of pretty much anything else. And I totally agree - for recreational flying, who cares about +-10% speed differences...
If they'd kept working on the SMA diesel (and I'm sure they could have worked out the kinks), it'd have been a complete game changer. Imagine, Jet A & +1600nm range...
A long time ago I suggested to Socata that they simply move the bulkheads that define the outermost extents of the fuel tanks, up to the next position.
All they would actually have to do is to fit different bulkheads in different places. The bulkheads within the fuel tank have holes in them; the 2 bulkheads at the ends of the fuel tanks obviously don't. And they would need to move the filler caps out correspondingly.
Engineering-wise, a trivial mod.
Maybe there would be a structural issue due to the extra weight, especially so far out, but a TB20 is built solidly. And this would give a total usable fuel exceeding 100USG, pushing the range out to about 1600nm.
That is how the PA-46 extended range fuel caps STC work Peter. But even easier as the bulkhead holes are there. So you just fill the wings up more.
On the basis that the 170kt is TAS, that (12.5 USG/hr) is 13.6 MPG.
The TB20, with its smaller engine, is slower; about 150kt TAS (FL110) at about 10.5 USG/hr which gives 14.2 MPG.
So, the two are very close in terms of overall aerodynamic efficiency.
I suspect the SR22 is smoother (it should be!) but sacrifices that advantage to have its fixed gear.
The SR22 is also about 10% heavier (MTOW) but weight is not a first order effect in light GA where one flies way beyond Vbg.
The SR22's 81 USG usable fuel (versus 86 for the TB20) would mean that (factoring in the above flow rates and speeds) its zero-fuel range would be about 10% less, which is borne out by owners I have spoken to. IOW, about 1200nm for the SR22 versus 1300nm for the TB20 - all at the very best economy conditions.
So, the two are very close in terms of overall aerodynamic efficiency.
A better comparison is to use the same BHP (brake horse power) number and compare fuel flow + TAS. Fuel flow will be virtually identical because our engines are all similar. Of course a similar weight also helps, most POH charts are at MTOW. If the Cirrus carries 100kg more than the TB20, then you have to put that into perspective.
