When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Fine, I respect your opinion....but deteriorated lower-body paint from salt and abrasives (which it protects from) looks even worse.
Given that most (if not all) crossovers are bought and driven as urban (as opposed to rural) daily drivers (in other words, driven as a car) how many cars have you seen -- even in salt- and sand-intensive states and provinces -- with badly-deteriorated lower bodies? I certainly have not.
I could argue that this lower-body cladding could be bad for these vehicles and could be a cause of deteriorating car bodies, because it traps moisture behind the cladding, next to the metal body panel.
This black lower-body cladding is nothing more than a now-required design cue for SUVs and CUVs. It is merely a confirmation statement to the fashion conscious that yes, they are driving the current, trendy utility vehicle rather than just a mere car.
I could argue that this lower-body cladding could be bad for these vehicles and could be a cause of deteriorating car bodies, because it traps moisture behind the cladding, next to the metal body panel.
Not if the cladding is attached properly.
This black lower-body cladding is nothing more than a now-required design cue for SUVs and CUVs. It is merely a confirmation statement to the fashion conscious that yes, they are driving the current, trendy utility vehicle rather than just a mere car.
Yet some versions, even on SUVs, don't have the cladding at all.
The first reaction many people would have, of course, is cost-cutting. But, in this case, IMO, this is one cost-cutting measure that actually makes sense, particularly on AWD SUVs which are often driven in bad weather and on snowy roads, with salt and abrasives. The gray or black-cladding that is substituted for regular body-color paint helps prevent lower-body damage, stains, and paint discoloration. in fact, I'd like to see more of the cladding up front, surrounding the grille, because damage from salt and abrasives can also deteriorate the front-end trim.
That would have been valid during the 1960's and 70's. Today's vehicles are built to a standard where paint does not discolor from road spray and additives. If a car's trim is deteriorating from the elements, it's faulty craftsmanship. This was common back in the day, but no longer.
The main reason manufacturers are adding the black trim is strictly for styling purposes. It actually costs more to stamp a fender that has a groove to accommodate added trim pieces and fasteners.
We forgot the UX. Big cladding on a small CUV I find questionable though it is growing on me. I have seen some with color-coordinated paint which makes the UX look like a hatchback. So I get the designers' intent on the UX, to make it "look" raised and more CUV-like.
That would have been valid during the 1960's and 70's. Today's vehicles are built to a standard where paint does not discolor from road spray and additives. If a car's trim is deteriorating from the elements, it's faulty craftsmanship. This was common back in the day, but no longer.
The main reason manufacturers are adding the black trim is strictly for styling purposes. It actually costs more to stamp a fender that has a groove to accommodate added trim pieces and fasteners.
The paint does not discolor, but the fenders bubble with rust. This is because the inside edge is rolled for strength, and that traps moisture and salt. I've experienced this personally on a 2000 BMW and a 2007 Lexus, and seen it on countless cars from the '90s, '00s, and '10s. The plastic edges allow these areas to be reinforced without rolling, making rust less likely, while also hiding it if it does occur.
No. From my memory, the lower-body cladding started some 15 years before the first Outback, with (certain versions of) the 1980-81 AMC Eagle and Eagle SX-4. The Eagle, which used versions of the AMC unibodied compact-wagon Concord and Spirit bodies/interors, on a raised-suspension and with a viscous-filled center-differential for modern full-time AWD as we know it, can be considered the first true crossover.
No. From my memory, the lower-body cladding started some 15 years before the first Outback, with (certain versions of) the 1980-81 AMC Eagle and Eagle SX-4. The Eagle, which used versions of the AMC unibodied compact-wagon Concord and Spirit bodies/interors, on a raised-suspension and with a viscous-filled center-differential for modern full-time AWD as we know it, can be considered the first true crossover.
Ok, but the OP's question wasn't "What was the first car with this design element?" As the thread title says: "When did this design element become popular on many SUV's and CUV's?" AMC did not make this a popular design element. In this time period in the 80s, as someone posted above, black trim/bumpers denoted the lowest trim levels--my mom's '86 Camry DX had black bumpers; you needed to step up to the LE for body color bumpers. So, no, AMC did not make this popular.
Ok, but the OP's question wasn't "What was the first car with this design element?"
Agreed, but you had mentioned the Outback as bring first, and I was only responding to that.
Actually, today, it probably doesn't matter who was actually first....like it or not, most of the industry, today, offers at least one or more crossovers with cladding, and those that don't (like Genesis) have crossovers on the way. It basically defines what the industry, as a whole, has become today.
s the thread title says: "When did this design element become popular on many SUV's and CUV's?" AMC did not make this a popular design element. In this time period in the 80s, as someone posted above, black trim/bumpers denoted the lowest trim levels--my mom's '86 Camry DX had black bumpers; you needed to step up to the LE for body color bumpers. So, no, AMC did not make this popular.
Agreed that the Eagle and SX-4 weren't that popular by today's standards, but the 1984 Jeep Cherokee (which was unibody, not BOF, and came along a few years later) introduced the body-cladding to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of buyers. The popularity of the 80s/90s-vintage Cherokee was enormous.
Fine, I respect your opinion....but deteriorated lower-body paint from salt and abrasives (which it protects from) looks even worse.
How long does that take to happen? I've never seen that before. Then again I live in California and don't have to worry about Salt roads and all that. What about Cars? most cars don't have that ugly black plastic and aren't having that deteriorated lower body you speak of.
Agreed, but you had mentioned the Outback as bring first, and I was only responding to that.
First in making "this design element popular"--responding to the OP.
Originally Posted by mmarshall
Agreed that the Eagle and SX-4 weren't that popular by today's standards, but the 1984 Jeep Cherokee (which was unibody, not BOF, and came along a few years later) introduced the body-cladding to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of buyers. The popularity of the 80s/90s-vintage Cherokee was enormous.
I thought about mentioning the Cherokee--but it wasn't a "trend" per OP.
How long does that take to happen? I've never seen that before. Then again I live in California and don't have to worry about Salt roads and all that. What about Cars? most cars don't have that ugly black plastic and aren't having that deteriorated lower body you speak of.
A comrade on the 3rd gen LS forum just posted his. Hate to see it....
How long does that take to happen? I've never seen that before. Then again I live in California and don't have to worry about Salt roads and all that. What about Cars? most cars don't have that ugly black plastic and aren't having that deteriorated lower body you speak of.
In a car made this decade? Hard to say because I don't ever see it here in the NE. This is why new cars come with lengthy corrosion warranties--rust proofing is way better than it was 20-30 years ago.
How long does that take to happen? I've never seen that before. Then again I live in California and don't have to worry about Salt roads and all that. What about Cars? most cars don't have that ugly black plastic and aren't having that deteriorated lower body you speak of.
Yes, it's nice to live in California's (mostly) benign climate, but salt can still (sometimes) be a problem right along the immediate coastline. And California has a lot of natural disasters to contend with (earthquakes, wildfires, mudslides/landslides, Santa Ana winds, etc...)...it's not necessarily the Paradise that is often glamorized.
Even in a nice climate, though, some people simply like the body-cladding look for its image. I think you and me (and tex2670) can all agree on that.
05-15-19, 04:12 PM
Big cladding on a small CUV I find questionable though it is growing on me. I have seen some with color-coordinated paint which makes the UX look like a hatchback. So I get the designers' intent on the UX, to make it "look" raised and more CUV-like.
