That's because it was the 1st model and so much different to the others out there. Sentimental value
Very true, a bit more classy I suppose
CX-5 16 vs. 17 Side Profile Black
- Thread starter m8te
- Start date
That's because it was the 1st model and so much different to the others out there. Sentimental value
Very true, a bit more classy I suppose
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Looks like the 2017 is more popular based on the poll. I remember when I joined the forum, I was sad that my CUV looked all cute and s***, and would have preferred more masculine lines like the Jeep Grand Cherokee or Forester or Explorer Sport, and I was told "no man, KODO! bro, KODO!". Well, now that it's GOT more mature lines, this forum is all "Yeah!" lol!
Personally, I am ambivalent towards it at this point, but the grill on the 2017 does not match the body, and it's plainly obvious that the re-style was just a money-saver because it allowed less operations, etc. and probably has a lower reject rate, as well. Basically, Mazda saved a buck, and sold it as "improvement", when it comes to the exterior. It reminds me of all the "HBAR" AR-15's from the 90's. Everyone was ALL ABOUT THAT HEAVY BARREL, and manufacturers charged MORE for them, when in reality, all it was was them skipping the step of profiling/turning down the barrel, and they sold the money-saver option at a higher cost to hobbyists who shot it off a bench once a year.
Personally, I am ambivalent towards it at this point, but the grill on the 2017 does not match the body, and it's plainly obvious that the re-style was just a money-saver because it allowed less operations, etc. and probably has a lower reject rate, as well. Basically, Mazda saved a buck, and sold it as "improvement", when it comes to the exterior. It reminds me of all the "HBAR" AR-15's from the 90's. Everyone was ALL ABOUT THAT HEAVY BARREL, and manufacturers charged MORE for them, when in reality, all it was was them skipping the step of profiling/turning down the barrel, and they sold the money-saver option at a higher cost to hobbyists who shot it off a bench once a year.
Might also have to do with pedestrian safety perhaps (scratch)
But if you look carefully, at least for me the 2017 grille appears as an evolution of the original CX-5 grille:
The mesh holes are smaller on the 2017 but still has a passing resemblance to the original.
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Bingo!
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Might also have to do with pedestrian safety perhaps (scratch)
But if you look carefully, at least for me the 2017 grille appears as an evolution of the original CX-5 grille:
The mesh holes are smaller on the 2017 but still has a passing resemblance to the original.
That Bubba Gump lip on the 17 is hideous.
Side profile tells it like it is.
The front hood of the car is too long - is out of proportion with the rest of the car. Its like a Giraffe and Hippo got cozy.
Front hood in itself + grille + its agressive shape is much better than 16. Problem is you cant drive the front alone. Atleast its not legal in most countries.
So side profile 16 gets an 8 / 10
17 does a 5/10.
The front hood of the car is too long - is out of proportion with the rest of the car. Its like a Giraffe and Hippo got cozy.
Front hood in itself + grille + its agressive shape is much better than 16. Problem is you cant drive the front alone. Atleast its not legal in most countries.
So side profile 16 gets an 8 / 10
17 does a 5/10.
I like gen 1's profile.
I like gen 2's rear a bit better.
The I like gen 2's grille but the gen 1's front bumper looks better. Essentially the gen 2 looks to gain from a front lip add-on. The gen 1's wheels look better. gen 2's interior IS better.
I like gen 2's rear a bit better.
The I like gen 2's grille but the gen 1's front bumper looks better. Essentially the gen 2 looks to gain from a front lip add-on. The gen 1's wheels look better. gen 2's interior IS better.
- :
- Denver, CO
This. 16 feels more....Mazda to me.
Not to mention, the chrome around the windows (gag), and losing the "swoop" which made it unique to me. 17 side profile looks much more generic now to me.
- :
- Denver, CO
In this thread: People justifying the version closest to what they bought
No car will ever appeal to everyone. Boggles my mind when people try to convince others about design. Oh well... entertaining read at least!
I don't think anyone is trying to convince anyone anything. Just people posting their opinions on a poll.
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
In this thread: People justifying the version closest to what they bought
No car will ever appeal to everyone. Boggles my mind when people try to convince others about design. Oh well... entertaining read at least!
Bull honky
Last edited:
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Yep, nothing more, nothing less.
We need a new poll on the front view and front view from the side.
You'd probably get the same results with the same comments
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Oh, I know. Just sayin'...
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
In this thread: People justifying the version closest to what they bought
No car will ever appeal to everyone. Boggles my mind when people try to convince others about design. Oh well... entertaining read at least!
Not really, I have a 2014 and think the new version looks great. Drove behind one for the first time and it looked smaller and wider but much nicer. Much prefer the 2017 version.
- :
- Denver, CO
In the end, we can agree Gen 1 or Gen 2...
Looks way better than the competition (RAV4, CR-V, Rogue, Escape, Subarus, etc.)
Looks way better than the competition (RAV4, CR-V, Rogue, Escape, Subarus, etc.)
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
agree
- :
- Denver, CO
Very true.
Checked out pics of the Tuscon....okay Hyundai-Kia has been know to flat out copy many luxury car designs in the past. I guess I'd take this as a compliment.
