The problem really is that it is a hybrid, designed to appeal to those with a fear of full electric and rusted on range anxiety.
A hybrid is the worst of both worlds. The battery is small so the electric range is woeful. The ICE engine is also small so needs to work hard to replace the energy drain from the battery. Charging a battery from an ICE engine is very inefficient. It has all the disadvantages of every ICE engined vehicle of consuming fossil fuel including maintenance and complexity.
How this bloke with the Shark got 24 litres/100k crossing the great dividing range which is essentially up hill overall and 44 on the flat doesn't add up. Was he driving in to a 50-80kmh headwind on the flat with a big flat fronted 3 tonne caravan? You cannot regenerate anywhere near the energy going downhill lost going uphill to the top. Only a long sustained down hill run will increase the energy level of the battery.
As for the reversal of the indicator and lights stalks, this is the standard that has applied in Europe for decades and also China. The UK, Japan, Korea & Australia made vehicles were the opposite. My MG4 made in China conforms to the European standard not its original British heritage.
I don't tow caravans, nor have a big ute, but I suspect that an acceptable fuel consumption for an ICE towing a typical caravan would be in the range of 13 to 18 litres per 100 km. That's why the figure in the 40s was such a shock. I really don't think that these massive EVs are suitable for towing much more than a tradies' trailer. I don't mean to be nasty about them, but it's always horses for courses when selecting a tool to do a job.
An Airline Pilot I once knew went into a Hardware store dressed like that and Ordered a Bottle of Methylated spirits. He rubbed it fondly and asked "I don't suppose you Have a COLD one , do you?" Nev