Is paint code *number* reliable if paint *name* is different?

:
2017 CX-5 Touring with I-Activesense in Eternal Blue Mica
I have a 2017 CX-5 in eternal blue mica. The paint code is 45B. There is also a Mazda color called eternal blue pearl used in Mazda3, with the same code number. So I assumed they were the same and ordered 45B from paintscratch.com, but it looks way off.

Have they formulated it wrong, or could 45B eternal blue mica be different from 45B eternal blue pearl, even though the number is the same?
 
Yep. Always go by code.

Thanks. Seems the formula they mixed is wrong then. Anyone you recommend other than paintscratch? I don’t think the dealer sells the color other than in the little goofy pen.

(The part I need to paint is the outside passenger mirror cover. For 2016 you could actually buy that as a separate part in color for about 40 bucks. Don’t see it for 2017 though so guess I’m stuck with painting for now. )
 
Any chance that a difference in top clear coat(s) could be the culprit, and not the actual color itself? I know that technically speaking, the paint code should cover the proper top coat as well, but perhaps what you bought doesn't include the clear coat?

Just looked at the Paintscratch website--not sure if you bought one of the full kits or just the individual "Touch Up Paint" items in the lower section, but those non-kit items are noted as "Touch Up Paint Basecoat of Eternal Blue Pearl 45B", so perhaps that indeed means those items don't include the full top coats required (well, the spray can seems to come with a separate clear coat spray anyway).

Also, on my own Crystal White Pearl CX-5, even straight from the dealer the mirror covers appeared less glossy than the body and the color seemed a bit flatter than on the car itself, and that has increased over time. I can imagine that effect might be even more prominent on certain colors versus white.

It may be easier, but not necessarily cheaper (mad), to order a replacement factory mirror cover to then ensure the best match and finish in the long run.
 
Back