James Vega and Steve Cortez argue this point during a conversation in Mass Effect 3 (I transcribed this by hand):
JAMES: I've always loved the M-35 Mako. It's got heart, y'know?
STEVE: Aw, c'mon. The M-44 Hammerhead is vastly superior.
JAMES: Come on, that thing's made of tissue paper. At least the Mako can take a few hits.
STEVE: I'd hope so! That thing handles like a drunk rhino, no agility whatsoever!
JAMES: More like a bull. That can climb and climb for days.
STEVE: It only climbs because of its stupid, vertically aligned mass effect fields. Jump or stick, no speed, no lateral movement.
JAMES: Hey, with a cannon like that, who needs to move?
They both have valid points. The original Mako was notoriously difficult to maneuver without an inordinate amount of practice. Unlike the environments in Mass Effect: Andromeda, the planets of the original Mass Effect typically did not have roads. In some cases, there would be flatter areas of the planet that were easier to navigate, but these were infrequent enough that "navigation" typically consisted of pointing the vehicle in the right direction and hitting the gas, with occasional small detours if a mountain or cliff was too steep.
The Hammerhead was more maneuverable, but as James points out, it had very little tolerance for damage. Naturally, Mass Effect 2 chose to use the Hammerhead in flatter environments with more enemies shooting at the player, compared to the mountainous and relatively sterile environments of Mass Effect and the Mako.
The mention of "vertically aligned mass effect fields" is interesting, and suggests to me that the construction of the Mako is simpler than that of the Hammerhead. This may indicate that the Nomad was designed with limited engineering facilities, which were unable to produce something like the Hammerhead. But that's purely speculation on my part.