How the 'stone guard' finish is applied appears to have changed if I compare my 2009 Monster to the current 2011.

2009, thick layer of stone guard spray both side of the hanging seam; looked durable but partly blocking the drain hole

2011, spray on the inside but what looks like a ribbon of wet sealant ‘tape’ applied to the outside which mixed with the cavity wax treatment has 'run' producing a slightly tatty looking edge. At least the drain hole is not restricted

TP

Washing the car the other week, I noticed that the rear wheel arches are not clad in plastic but some sort of rough material. Also why have Skoda left the sills uncovered below the plastic as when you look at the underside it looks rather crude. I have looked at other Yetis and all appear to be the same, any ideas?

I understand what you mean.It has bothered me too.

The interior of the front wheel housing (arches) is covered with tough shiny plastic,and the rear ones have an absorbent "feltish" look and feel.Misunderstood to me.Wish someone would come up with a logical answer.Why differ from the front ones?

Edited 22 April, 201214 yr by oriki

Because the front ones aren't required to be sound deadening, and the rear ones are!

Deleted - post duplicated for some reason.

Edited 22 April, 201214 yr by speedsport

The front wheel arches are plastic lined, and mostly within the bonnet area. Therefore there's no water impact against metal whose other side is within the car. The rear arches are entirely within the cabin/boot area, so the soft flock-like arch protectors are designed to insulate the cabin from the noise of spray hitting the arches. It's been a feature of many makes of cars back to the late 1990's, though some manufacturers have been slow to adopt.

It really does make quite a big difference!