Here is the answer which I already alluded to.   400 V architecture Kia markets EV3 and EV5 as based on the E-GMP 400 V architecture. Their chassis are derived from the front-wheel-drive Hyundai-Kia K3 and N3 platforms, with body structures redesigned for the battery electric vehicles.   The 400v version of e-gmp is derived from a FWD platform.  The clean sheet 800V version used in the EV6/Ionic 6, et al is RWD with optional AWD.  

I forgot about the axle length.  But it's still better to separate the drive wheels from the steering wheels.  With AWD the front motor is usually smaller.

They attenuated torque steer by avoiding it altogether.  EV batteries are so heavy and balanced that there is no difference in handling or traction.

Torque steer is from uneven length axle shafts found in traverse transaxles on ICE products. IIRC 40 years ago this was an issue because of the lack of transmission/engine management. Its been mitigated to a point due to the use of AWD and controlling torque output from the powertrain.    Looking at the E-GMP platform on Hyundai's page, shows the motors in the middle of the "axle" so torque steer wouldn't be an issue, because both drive shafts should be almost identical in length on both sides.    Though I do have questions on how you squeeze 7 motors in an EV like the Mach E 1400..do they stack together? How does the odd man work? LOL   https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33368022/ford-mustang-mach-e-1400-revealed/

So, the purported UEV based Lincoln will be called.....

Your Dealer has access to the information for any applicable Controlled Commodity restrictions specific to your order. The Controlled Commodity information is updated daily. Should there be any applicable commodity restrictions on your order, Ford is very good on making exceptions to the restrictions on retail orders in order to expedite scheduling.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcIqCdvs75q/?igsh=MWkzdnBoYWhibmVocA==

So, FoMoCo cannot figure out how to attenuate torque steer while other manufacturers can? I don't believe that for one second. One major advantage in a FWD layout is traction availability. I am not saying it is "better" than RWD, but after a few generations of drivers that learned to drive safely in a small, lightweight FWD based vehicle, switching them up to a RWD vehicle could be a negative for them.....I actually prefer RWD but then again, that's me.  

I think history has shown that engines that where developed in the 1960-70s aren't good candidates just to slap things on them to make them perform like a more modern engine. If that was really the case, I'd think you'd see more manufactures doing it-new engine architectures get influenced by past designs, but a direct application often doesn't work The biggest thing I tell is that the manufacturing tolerances for  new engines (for better or worse) are far more tighter tolerance-wise then old engines and the ability to have a digital twin (a digital example) for developmental/engineering work is a huge help for future development work.    If Ford did an I6, I'd expect it to be the new MPC I4 with two additional cylinders added and it would be roughly a 3.5L I6...but I guess they would be able to adjust the displacement vs stroke differences.    Doing the math-the 2.3L is 643mm long, which works out to about 160mm per cylinder or 946mm if you add two cylinders...but I'm also assuming my math is off because that is including the belts/accessories and multiplying it 2x when it doesn't need to be.   The 5.0L V8 is 800mm long, so maybe using a 15% reduction in length, a 3.5L I6 would be slightly shorter then the V8 or roughly the same size? 

🦉 I wonder? Another bird? 😅