I'd largely agree with Jabberwork.
Cessna are a company for who R&D would best be described as 'this year's paint scheme'. They are not just conservative but completely devoted to re-hashing and re-using existing designs for as long as Textron think the business is viable. Think of the 172 - an OK aircraft when first introduced but that was over 45 years ago - can you image any supplier of consumable durables hoping to keep a old design in production fro that long (BMC, BLMC and Rover excepted!!)
Add in the issue that many in Us aviation have largely the same viewpoint. Mechanics hate the Rotax 'funny little foreign engine that needs silly little tools and is just pernickety about settings' is an exact quote I got!
So Cessna have produced an LSA that looks like a Cessna - they have carefully costed making it - because this is a market sector that is potentially so big in the States that thy have to be in it. Then they do a deal with Continental - a company with a similar mind set to buy their old design engine. How much will they be paying for the O-200 - probably very little, very likely under half what the retail cost is. That makes it very cheap versus a Rotax and as fuel costs are so low it does not cause they a disadvantage in the US market.
It al makes sense financially - but it's certainly depressing that their approach is so cynical.
The sooner Cirrus etc kill their SEP market the better.