I could see how in Europe, where every little compact hatchback has a tow rating, this could be very frustrating. In the US, where mostly college kids drive compact cars, every household has at least two vehicles, and mom regularly hauls the kids around in their “family” 2 ton SUV (that has no hitch), somebody you know probably has a truck. Our tow vehicle standards (either official or customary) seem to be more stringent. That seems to leave leaked into the European-spec Mach-E. Would be nice to have a tow hitch, even if it was just for mounting a bicycle carrier.

In the US, manufacturers are not required to give all vehicles tow ratings and towing with those without one may cause warranties to be voided. That’s why I ended up with a hybrid “SUV” that has nearly the same size as a Prius (1620mmH x 1825mmW x 4460mmL vs 1490mmH x 1760mmW x 4540mmL; it’s 130mm taller, 65mm wider, and 90mm shorter giving it a slightly SMALLER footprint than a Prius while being tow-rated).

Doesn’t the USA subsidize electric vehicles a ton too with tax credits and other subsidies at both the consumer and producer levels?

First, yes, but there’s some pretty big differences in the how which change the end result. With EVs there’s three types of subsidies:

1. Subsidies on developing the technology/manufacturing techniques - This is where the government, in an attempt to bootstrap an industry, will pay for some of the up-front costs for developing specific parts of technologies that are too large or risky for a company to do on their own. So there is benefit to the nation and the manufacturer in that the resulting cars can be less expensive because that initial development cost doesn’t have to be recovered from the sale of each unit. However, there is no incentive for the manufacturer to produce any more cars than will sell. Both the US and China have used this subsidy to pay to develop battery and EV drive train technologies domestically.

2. Subsidies on the consumer purchase - This is where a person buys something and gets a rebate on taxes. So a manufacturer/nation benefit on the domestic sale of the unit, and a tiny bit of benefit in helping their economies of scale for production. Remember though, this is a domestic consumption subsidy. The rebate can only be claimed by a citizen in that country under their taxation/monetary system rules. Nobody in Belgium is able to claim the US tax credit of $7500 for purchasing an EV in the USA. So the benefit is really only felt internally. No amount of $7500 rebates claimed in Chicago is going to help someone that wants a US EV in Antwerp. With this subsidy there is no incentive for the manufacturer to produce any more cars than there are people willing and able to claim the rebate domestically.

3. Subsidies on the production - This is where the manufacturer receives subsidies from the government just for making the car irrespective of which country it ever ends up in. This is where it goes off the rails. The manufacturer gets money from the government simply for building the car. Neither the government nor the manufacturer need a buyer for the car. The manufacturer gets the credit it wants immediately after the car exists. Again, both the USA and China use this too, but the USA policy has the capability to create tiny amounts of potentially unwanted cars (“compliance cars”). A good example of this is the BEV MX-30 EV. The total sales of this vehicle over the last 3 years was only 485 cars. The scale China is using can create huge fleets of unpurchased domestically cars. This ends up creating lots of cheap cars for export.

Its this last point that, if continued, allows for government of China to pay for a chunk of the cost of a buyer in Antwerp Belgium or the USA.

Um, no. The car companies have one and only one philosophy: to sell cars for profit.