We MB nuts understand...

Absolutely. Just don't even bother trying to explain that to the guy with a huge ugly wing on the back of his front-drive Civic. If he's not smart enough to realize that his hunk of injection-molded testosterone is creating aerodynamic drag while not helping the handling or stability of the car in any way, then he's not likely to understand the issues at stake in front vs. rear drive.
One thing you constantly run into is "but front-drive is better on snow and ice." Well, that's true, if you don't know how to drive. Some rear-drive cars don't have enough weight in the back, but that's easy to fix. I've passed droves of front-drivers on some pretty slick snowpack and ice. That's in my Fairlane. With regular tires.
There's only one reason that so many carmakers have been trying to sell front-drive as the better alternative: Cost. It's a lot cheaper to cram everything into the front of the car than to run it out to the back. Chrysler is finally figuring out that FWD doesn't work out so well in big cars. Ford never really forgot it, they're still selling the Crown Victoria (ever wonder why so many police departments use them exclusively?). GM is off starting it's "Revolution," which as likely as not means they're going to keep pushing the same warmed-over cars with worse and worse styling at us. Oh well; at least some of us know what's what.

__________________
Once and future king:
'64 Ford Fairlane w/approx 238,000 - looks rough, but amazingly reliable if you know how to look after it; I will soon begin work to totally restore and modernize it.
Family vehicles that I lay some claim to:
'78 300D w/approx 350,000 original, '62 Ford F100 4x4, '90 Ford E150 w/171,000 original