————
No my friend. I owned a 1974 Chevy Nova back in my younger days. That car was a tank in the snow. My next car was a brand new Front wheel drive Pontiac Sunbird. I was unimpressed with the Front Wheel Drive. I honest thought my Nova was better.

As for the Mustang I was mentioning, It was most likely a combination of car, driver, tires, road conditions and transmission.

I have come to prefer Front Wheel Drive over Rear Wheel Drive. But in my opinion, nothing is better than All Wheel Drive

I’m pretty sure where you live, ice isn’t much of a problem.
I have an inch thick ice sheet covering my driveway.
but Front Wheel drive doesn’t always work well. My Elantra makes it out of my driveway with no problem. My wife’s Elantra does not.

However who knows if C will even sell these with cold/freezing Winter climates.

Only good thing about rear wheel drive is no torque steer… something my Volvo S70 T5 suffers from when gas was cheap and I used to peel out from a stop

Baby better not be going to those dope-heads’ houses!

In any case, plenty of people do fine with RWD, and who knows how an EV’s weight distribution might affect handling. I’m just saying that the 200C’s appeal as a “general purpose” vehicle is reduced for me, because I love winter and snow.

There was little discussion of the ICE engine but the so-called World I4 (and I3), is produced at 1.8 liters. Detuned to Atkinson cycle would seem to produce more than just 74 HP. So there may be another downsize to say 1.6 liters. GEMA has flexible engine manufacturing for that engine; and makes 2.4, 2.0 and 1.8 engines all on the same line with claimed lots sizes as small as one, so they are fully flexible and could add a 1.6 without extensive tooling costs or long extensive planning.

GM is erecting a new factory and bringing over the Liberty engine family from Europe. It is updating it, and plans to manufacture it here. That takes time and money. That Chrysler engine though is subject to complaints of NVH crudeness at 2.4 liters. Many believe this is due to trying to maximize HP, because Chrysler suffers from inadequate transmissions. Its pretty refined in Mitsu or Huyndai tuning. It is certainly more advanced an engine than the iron block, Chevy Volt 1.4 liter Liberty engine family. It is all alloy and was designed a generation later, with extensive preparations to support Turbo charging, DI and even anticipates HCCI operation, eventually. That should generate some substantial savings and shorten development time.

The platforms that Chrysler chose are all current production platforms, and not a next generation platform as the Volt’s Delta platform is being created just now.

That should also save some money and development time. The next generation platform for the Chrysler RWD cars is really a third generation of that platform, with little genuinely new that I can perceive. It was used for the Mercedes E class, the current C300, and will be used for the next generation 300C as well as this C200. Again not a lot of expenditure as GM has been doing.

But I want to return to the EREV layout. It appears that the motor generator is transversely mounted in front. The traditional transmission tunnel is allocated to what appears to be electronic controllers and EHVAC and the last part to batteries under the rear seat. In a “short T” package similar to the Volt battery pack. Since there is no connection via axle, to the rear end, this space is well used and should provide a commodious seating arrangement in front. The IRS rear has the electric traction motor. Taken together this should produce a well balanced weight, fore and aft, a very low CG, and the handling benefits of RWD. This was mentioned only in passing, but this 200C could be an award-winning, superb handling vehicle. That LX platform is well sorted out and offers superb handling, with a five point IRS. Mercedes has never been accused of building poor handling cars. With this setup, the weight distribution should only improve. The only drawback is reduced cargo capacity in the trunk, but that is no different than all RWD setups.

Many here fall in love with the work of start-up auto makers who engineering abilities are tiny by comparison. Even Chrysler reduced as it is by circumstances, can bring enormous relative engineering advantages to bear.

I would have feared for the weght of a CD sized EREV, versus a “C” segment implementation. It tappears that Chrysler is not as concerned and GM has less concern with 16KWH being enough to provide 40 miles of AER. CErtainlly reserviing 50% of battery capacity to insure 150K miles of life seems to be turning out to be an un necessary precaution. Perhaps reserving only 40 -45% wil be required, freeing 10% more power for the 40 AER target.