IMHO its… not an mx5, to be honest. As a design, I think its reasonable. Not ugly, not pretty. However, this goes against the basics of the car, does it not? They didn’t give the last car more grip because they wanted to go for more fun… this car did not need to be more aggressive, and I feel that it most definitely could’ve been prettier were it less aggressive. The rear end bothers me, it has several character lines which just do not line up, breaking the flow for me.
I really like the aesthetics of the car. It’s a great modern adaptation of a generation of small roadsters. I would say its looks are more in tune with old Triumphs and Austins than 90s Mazdas, but perhaps this change is good. Without the badge, I’d still say it’s a Mazda. It still has the feel of the old car, just not the exact look.
Hm… Definitely a sharp look yes. But I share the complaints I’ve also had about revamped iconic cars, that somehow they’ve been changed into something else! (Other examples include concepts for the lancia stratos, the bmw m1, the new Honda nsx, and the successor to the Toyota supra… All sleek, with chopped up sweeping lines and just… Something else.)
What matters most to me is how it drives. One of my Mazda nut friends is going to get it, and is pushing me to get the NA so we can compare
I think it looks cool in my opinion, it looks longer and sleeker. I can see why people can hate it though, the MX-5 really isn’t supposed to be long and sleek, it looks more like a Jag F-Type in my opinion. Other than that, it looks pretty cool and spor- wait a minute… its a 4 lug! They lost a lug!