Alex, I am puzzled by your theory you keep repeating for some reason having two different power sources to the front and rear is inferior despite the reality is other way around. Lets come to real world, when do you get stuck? only when you have no traction. Is that right? Not because of lack of power? is that right? In the case of mechanical AWD, you have one additional center differential, means any one of the 4 wheels slip, you lose traction for all 3 wheels because the way Differential functions. So if one front wheel lose traction because of slippery surface/ice, it will keep rotating without transferring much torque to other wheels, unless the car has some sort of limited slip differential. To come close to capability of two power source drive train, mechanical AWD atleast need to have center limited slip differential or at least lockable center differential. None of the brake vectoring torque transfer can smoothly transfer full power to single wheel. In case of of individual power sources, system can cut off power to slipping axle and give full torque to axle with most grip. Same thing goes for the case of "on the fly" as it can rotate the axles at different speeds to keep the car in the intended path without need to use much of braking(to control understeer/oversteer). Using braking is never going to be as smooth as individually controllable axle speeds. The fundamental problem is traction to wheels, not the power. That's the reason a mechanical AWD can never match fineness and capability of properly designed dual power source system. BTW, its not about Toyota vs Honda. I don't care which uses which system. My point is to highlight technically incorrect explanation you have been giving on many reviews in recent memory which involves this kind dual power source drives. Please let me know if you have evidence or explanation which proves otherwise.
.
