Kodachrome Rules OK?

I've just had two Kodachrome films back (via Switzerland) and the turn round time was six days - better that the E6 films that I sent at the same time to Leicester and are still not back.
Why do magazines invariably ignore Kodachrome when doing film tests - fine grain, unsurpassed sharpness and detail, superbly neutral colours and the best long term stability of any colour film (if kept in the dark). It also should have greater resistance to X-Rays, being a black and white film until development.
My first Kodachrome films from 1969 still look unchanged, but the E4 films from the same era are a nasty shade of purple.
How about a Pentax User film test that includes everything?

Whenever I have seen a comparative reviews in the newsstand mags, such as PP and AP, I have seen Kodachrome included. I guess when a mag does a test of new films it ignores that one because it's been around so long.
We could do a test in Pentax User but it would take up all the magazine if it was comprehensive. I'll put the feelers out to see if we can get a supplement sponsored and include that in addition to the mag. Alternatively I could do a couple of films per issue but then it would take a couple of years to build up and then Kodak or Fuji would probably have a new film to replace the ones tested.

Extensive tests was something that PHOTO TECHNIQUE was very good at, when it was edited by Jack Schofield. Not only films, but superb issues on different formats, wide angle lenses, telephoto lenses, etc. Then there were the superb lens tests in CREATIVE PHOTOGRAPHY, edited by David kilpatrick. Pentax lenses held up very well indeed in these tests.
These days, I find the efforts of the magazines are very bitty and superficial and there is no real attempt to really cover any field comprehensively.
If it were possible, I would like to see some tests in PENTAX USER, films could be one subject but also how about lenses? Different lenses have different design parameters and can be intended for different applications and it would have saved me a fortune over the years if more information had been available. For example, what different properties could I expect from the 77mm f1.8 lens compared to the 85mm f1.4? Are they both critically sharp wide open, is one softer at wide apertures to be more suitable for portraits, and so on. Meaningful information would be very useful, hopefully better than some of the glossy literature - I have one publication from Pentax that describes almost all the zooms as "the most versatile in the range"! Catchy phrase, but pretty meaningless...

Rather than exhaustive tests comparing films (which as you have both mentioned can be found in numerous mags) it would be nice to see individual films put through their paces, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of individual emulsions. I am sure that I am not alone in finding the repetitive pictures of test cards / models etc a waste of space.

I absolutely take your point on that. Sometimes it seems like just going through the motions, with very little imagination applied.
I am, as you can tell, a great fan of the qualities of Kodachrome. One interesting use is the copying of black and white originals - Kodachrome is very neutral and makes a cheap and reliable method of preparing a slide presentation. The contrast is also well under control and helps in retaining both highlight and shadow detail.
Then again, it can't be perfect because outdoors I tend to stick an 81A filter in front of it!