Chicago saw the introduction of the 2017 Chevrolet Trax, which features a mildly-extensive refresh in the design department inside and out. We’re here to ask if you’re digging the Trax’s new duds.
Chevrolet says the contemporary looks have been inspired by the latest product from the bowtie brand, including the 2016 Malibu and 2016 Volt. The 2017 Trax ditches its seriously outdated looks for a fresh dual-port grille and sleek headlamps now wrap around the corners of the vehicle into the front fenders.
To be fair, when the Trax was first introduced to the U.S. market 13 months ago, the car had already been on sale for some time, and was introduced to combat the hot compact crossover market. Still, these looks certainly speak better to us, and we think the exterior design now gives the Trax a plump little SUV look.
However, the interior is not getting the same love from us. Despite Chevrolet stating the interior cabin has been updated with “premium elements,” it still gives off hefty rental car vibes. The one area that is most certainly improved inside, and looks pretty cohesive, is the addition of the seven-inch touchscreen with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto capability.
Enough from us, though. Vote in our poll below, and talk to us in the comment section below.
Comments
Absolutely hot compared to the 2016 model. The front end changes make a huge diference to the overall appearance.
Agree. Front and interior were its weakest points and both got very extensive updates. Front looks like it’s completely different car now and interior is in line with the rest of Chevy’s lineup. Even if cheaper materials are used throughout it still looks very good in my eyes.
My mom has a 2015 and the front end makes it look so boring. The new look is much better.
From the side, it looks “unbalanced”, like a lot more mass is located in front of the front wheels, than what is located behind the rear wheels. Like at the end of the design process, they realized that the car was going to be too long, so they sliced off the last foot of the back.
A lot of mass of the Trax IS indeed located in front of front wheels, because it is a FWD-first vehicle (AWD is an option after FWD), and it’s usually the case for the FWD vehicles – not just for SUVs, but for regular cars too
(one recent exception which comes to mind is new 3rd gen 2017- Buick LaCrosse, which is also FWD-first, but where front wheels are actually moved forward considerably; as a result, it looks more like a RWD, and is supposed to drive better too. Besides, if I’m not mistaken, Audi’s are also FWD-first, but look more like RWD)
Rear of the Trax is very short because it’s a subcompact SUV, and they generally tend to sacrifice rear overhang a lot, so that they look pretty much “tailless”. Same thing with e.g. Buick Encore (which is actually “upped” Trax) Nissan’s Juke and so on.
Yes, I understand the design reasoning, I just don’t like the visual results. The exception would be the Buick LaCrosse I guess, do to the fact that they did reposition the front wheels. Repositioning the wheels evenly in concert/balance with the whole design would improve the side profile.
The new Trax just looks front heavy when seeing it from the side view.
I am w/ “Bandman”…looks like the car was designed by 2 teams w/o an overall design concept.
I have to voice a no go on the front grill….looks too large for the overall dimensions of the car.
Too Audi-ish without the additional mass required to pull it off.
I like the concept of the segment…just not the execution
I understand that small SUV’s and crossovers are becoming a big part of the market, but anything smaller than an Equinox/Terrain, and you may as well have just purchased a car. The little things are ugly, under-powered, and no more practical than a mid-size sedan with it’s trunk cut off…which is what they look like.
These small SUVs are pretty much like tall 5 door hatchbacks; they are way taller than cars, so they are “safer” to park – they are pretty short, and one won’t touch the tall concrete curb with its bumper, unlike especially the front (lower) bumper of a regular car, and, sitting higher, these small SUVs provide better visibility for the driver. A lot of people seem to be fans of these things.
I’m not a fan, personally – I just listed their objective advantages which I recognize myself; but, to me, they also look “froggish”, disproportional and funny in shape. I won’t buy one of these tiny SUVs myself (I’m a male, 33 y/o, driving 2nd gen 2010 Buick LaCrosse – it is actually a full opposite to these tiny SUVs – it is a 5 meter long sedan (mid-to-full-size, depends on who you ask), it has V6, it is bold and solid looking, but it is not very easy to park with its low front bumper – after previously driving Hyundai Accent and the like, initially I felt in the LaCrosse like I’m a captain of a boat or a “barge” 🙂 ).
Not necessarily “hot”, but most definitely much improved! And in all the right places! I’d actually consider one if I were in the market!
Yeah it helps the look of the Trax immensely, but it raises two problems.
Problem 1. The look of the rest of it doesn’t match the fascia.
Problem 2. This is just the 6th gen Camaro face on a baby CUV. This was done with the Impala and Traverse and I’m tired of it. You had a homerun design with the Impala, then threw it’s face on the Traverse. Now you had a really good Camaro face that was a vast improvement over fifth gen and it’s thrown on a little CUV.
I may be the minority here and I understand the cost saving measures, but it’s not like they’re interchangeable. I digress. It’s nice but I’m more for keeping a design for one thing.
The 2017 Chevy Trax looks more muscular while the current Trax is plain.
It goes from looking like a hamster to a face worthy of what it is, an SUV and not a car.