Front underpanel - did they mess up at the assembly line?

[madman]

these two pictures show how was the front underpanel installed from factory (above the bumper - see screws securing clips on the underpanel?) and how did I changed it to be installed right IMO (underpanel BELOW bumper, had to remount all clips from underpanel to bumper).

Did they messed it up at the factory? Anybody else has this? This is 05 model and this was the first time the bumper was taken off.

Before (stock):

After:

 

[Kenny]

Your way certainly looks more correct because of the recessed lip of the bumper, but if it is correct, then mine is wrong also.

 

[Andrew/USPWR]

Although it looks better. I think the way it’s done from the factory is better overall. If you run over something and scrap the front end, it could get under that water shield and tear it or rip it loose. The way it comes from the factory, that couldn’t happen. Also aerodynamics. You’ll will, or could, get some drag from the lip of that water shield. IMO

 

[Jeff Lemke]

The red car is incorrect. It was right the first time although I understand why you might think it goes that way. The picture posted above is correct.

Jeff

 

[rcl4668]

Although it looks better. I think the way it’s done from the factory is better overall. If you run over something and scrap the front end, it could get under that water shield and tear it or rip it loose. The way it comes from the factory, that couldn’t happen. Also aerodynamics. You’ll will, or could, get some drag from the lip of that water shield. IMO

My 2006 bumper looks like the picture posted by Andrew, not like your "after picture".

/Rich

 

[madman]

Although it looks better. I think the way it’s done from the factory is better overall. If you run over something and scrap the front end, it could get under that water shield and tear it or rip it loose. The way it comes from the factory, that couldn’t happen. Also aerodynamics. You’ll will, or could, get some drag from the lip of that water shield. IMO

I thought too that (at least) aerodynamics plus the scrap thing vote in favor of the stock setup. But the recessed lip factor plus the way it looks (stock) suggest that the stock is just not right. I think (not that it matters) that the author of design intended to have it done 'after' way but then somebody at the factory decided (maybe because of the 'scrap' thing) that they will just do it the other way.

As for me I am going to leave it this way, I like it better and it functions better. The underpanel is very rigid - it's made from FG and not urethan like the body panels.

 

[Andrew/USPWR]

thought too that (at least) aerodynamics plus the scrap thing vote in favor of the stock setup. But the recessed lip factor plus the way it looks (stock) suggest that the stock is just not right. I think (not that it matters) that the author of design intended to have it done 'after' way but then somebody at the factory decided (maybe because of the 'scrap' thing) that they will just do it the other way.


____________________

I think your right about the design. I also believe the Gen I & II are set like your second picture. I know when I pulled off my Gen II shield, it's had tears were it had caught on debris underneath.