Blue Velvet.

In Norway, Subaru is synonymous with winter.

The ability to get anywhere on almost any surface is a trait we northerners appreciate more than most other car-related luxuries. Mainly because we head for the mountains every time there is an opening in the calendar; to attack the hills with skis, snowboards and other pointy, winter related sports gadgets. In order to get to the place we need to be to have a good outdoor experience, cars with four wheel drive is a must. Or is it?

The last few years there has been a virtual explosion of 4x4s in Norway. Back in the day our grandfathers drove up the icy mountain hills in Volkswagen Beetles, relying on little more than that boxer engine pushing the rear wheels to the ground in order to get the proper amount of traction needed. No fancy 4x4, no ESP or anti-lock brakes, and at most of times, not even proper winter tyres. But all that has changed.

Now you can get four wheel drive on almost anything. I recently drove a Fiat Panda 4x4. It was the size of a hockey puck, but it would climb anything you put it up against. Insane. But the reason we buy cars with 4x4, has little or nothing at all to do with the ability to get anywhere. Because we can get anywhere with 2WD cars as well.

I know this is not a very popular statement in a country which covets the all-wheel-drives. But it's true. Even if the ground is slippery, even if there roads are crap, even if there's -20 degrees; you'll get where you need to be in a regular, two-wheel-driven car. It just requires finesse, that's all.

In order to prove this, I also headed for the mountains. In a Subaru. But this is not a four wheel drive car. Lately Subaru have started to deviate from their all-wheel-driven philosophy; their first 2WD car on the Norwegian market being the budget shopping trolley Trezia. Now there is another one, albeit with the driven wheels in the opposite end: The BRZ. This Toyota GT86 clone is not much more than - well, a GT86 clone. It HAS got a different feel to it, though; the rear end isn't nearly as slippery as the Toyotas, and the steering has a heavier feel to it. I must admit I prefer the GT86, of the simple reason that it's worse to drive. Let me explain...

The GT86 has got 200 horsepower going though the rear wheels. Those rear wheels rarely keep in line if you're going through a bend in anything lower than 3rd gear. Which means you will have a slide. Which is fun, but also challenging. That's why I've never felt any lack of power in the Toyota.

The Subaru, on the other hand, is a more track-focused thing. Not by a million miles, of course- they are almost indistinguishable on most accounts. But the suspension settings have been altered to make it more grippy; softer in the rear, harder in the front. You especially feel the difference when going through a roundabout in 2nd gear. When putting my foot down, I feel the power hitting the wheels, I feel that LSD diff distributing the power and I prepare for a massive oversteer, as I would in the Toyota GT86. But the rear stays settled. What a bummer...

Only when dumping the clutch does the tail step out. This is more in line with a BMW 1-series handlingwise; it's tuned to stay on track with optimal balance. Which is a good thing, on paper at least. But here's the thing: Suddenly, those 200 horses seem a bit daft. There's no instability, no madness like in the Toyota GT86.

So, did I get to the mountain and back safely? Of course. Rear wheel drive is no drawback, unless you need to do a hillstart on an icy surface. Other than that, it's a-ok. But I'd still have the Toyota...