I have an Intel 520 series. Easily saturates the lowly SATA 3Gbps interface in my laptop with basically any workload I throw at it. Intel claims >500MB/sec performance both read and write (using SATA 6Gbps, obviously), and many people claim it does generally hit the 400+ mark on real-world workloads.
Intel's reliability is generally noted to be among the better. Everybody seems to be able to point to a horror story from every manufacturer, but I've honestly heard fewer about Intel's, even considering an older model with (now) known flaws. Intel provides a 5 year warranty, though it won't cover data loss (pretty much nothing does). You should always have backups, of course, for any drive.
They ain't cheap, though. A 240GB cost me ~$330 approx. 4 months ago. Still way cheaper than that Western Digital. I have no idea why that's so expensive unless they're claiming drastically better performance than basically everything else on the market (which is already constrained by SATA 6Gbps in many cases).
As a comment, it does suck that SSD reliability just isn't up there. The hardware reliability should be a fair bit better than revolving metal, but apparently the software is hard to get right. As an embedded developer I'm mixed on this. On one hand, they should test their firmware better, but on the other hand, I'm well aware of how complicated the little things like this can get.