No kidding. Wow. I missed that.They seem to be more concerned with fuel economy than anything. Not really what I expect from a car magazine.
"Despite the CR-V's slower acceleration, we'd still recommend comparing the CX-5 2.5T against the Honda, which is EPA-rated at 27/33 mpg with all-wheel drive and a 1.5-liter engine. Thing is, the CX-5 2.5T's extra power and torque will tempt you every time you get behind the wheel, meaning you may not achieve the EPA's 22/27 mpg estimate in the real world. Even if you did, however, that's less driving range and lower fuel economy than the CX-5 2.5 AWD's 24/30 mpg. Depending on how you feel about your role amid increasingly serious news about climate change, owning the gorgeous and entertaining CX-5 2.5T also comes standard with the guilt you may carry from driving a compact crossover with the fuel economy of a larger vehicle. Put another way, the quicker CX-5 2.5T merely manages EPA-rated fuel economy on the highway what the CR-V 1.5 AWD achieves in the city (the more challenging rating for non-hybrids)."[/QUOT
Not only is MT cheerleading for Honda, but they could spare the reader their political views presented as facts: no need for climate change and suggesting feelings of guilt over it to be mentioned in a car review. Let the reader come to his or her own conclusions about the new CX-5s mpg ratings and whether it is a deal breaker or not...the reader doesn't need a lecture on climate change or made to feel guilty for driving a " compact crossover with the fuel economy of a larger vehicle. "