'Course we can't get the WRX in the US :(...<p>http://www.subaru.co.nz/AutocarFrameset.html<p>Warren<ul><li><a href="http://www.subaru.co.nz/AutocarFrameset.html">awd vs everything...</a></li></ul>

Warren,<br>Thanks for posting the link, it was entertaining reading. It would have been great if the author could have really stuck to a compairison of engine/drive wheel layouts for each of the 5 cars. Too bad he chose to slant the entire article towards the Subaru. Case in point:<br>Radius Test<br>When the Porsche beats the Subaru by 2 mph in the wet its called a "smidgeon faster", but when the Subaru beats the Porsche by only 1 mph in the dry the author claims the Subaru was "untouchable".<br>Slalom Test<br>When the Subaru wins in the wet slalom run it is refered to as "ultra-impressive" (I personally would have expected just about any awd car to win this race given the competition). But when the Subaru places 3rd out of 5 cars in the dry run it is refered to as "excellent". The car that won the dry run (Lotus) was given credit for wining due to "its small deminsions" not its mid engine rear drive layout (awd would have most certainly been touted had the Subaru won).<br>15 Meter Standing Start Acceleration Run<br>When Subaru won both the wet and dry runs with a difference of .25 seconds in the two times (wet=2.50, dry=2.25) it was refered to as "little difference in the wet or dry times for the Subaru". The Porsche times, which were only .08 and .29 seconds slower were tagged with the comment "There was nothing that even the 911 could do to touch the Subaru". Why is .25 seconds little difference but .08 seconds such a huge difference? And what is the logic behind the 50ft acceleration test? Why not 10ft or 100ft or something standard like 0-60 times or a 1/4 mile run? It almost makes one wonder if the testers knew that 15 meters was as far as the Subaru could go and still come out ahead in the scoring.<br>Don't get me wrong Warren, I'm not bashing you or awd or Subaru or anything except irresponsible reporting (bordering on infomercial hype in this case). I have no doubt that if one could find 5 cars with similar hp/weight ratios, overall dimensions, gearing and tires but with different engine/drive configurations it would still come out about the same, AWD is the best combo overall. I just wish the author had not tried to shade the facts with his opinions. Enough (maybe too much) said.<br>George<br>Currently with a 96 A4Q (and very happy in the midwest snow) <br>Priors include Porsche 911, Subaru Imprezza awd, BMW 740i

I noticed this too. I thought, at first, that the article was written for Subaru by Subaru, but then I saw the "Autocar" or whatever picture in the top corner. A real magazine I assumed, but I'm not sure. I do want to drive one of those WRXs though, no matter how biased the article is :).<p>Warren