GenVibe - Community for Pontiac Vibe Enthusiasts

Even though I did buy my 2006 Vibe two-tone, why was this an option? I think that the monotone package cost something like $400.00, which is like just under $7.00 a month on a 5 year loan. Was GM/Pontiac trying to cut cost by not painting the fender flares, front and rear bumpers and side skirts? Or was this purely a cosmetic option? I was thinking about getting these pieces painted but I don't know if I want to spend that much on it. Probably would be cheaper to find a totaled Vibe in my color (Abyss) and go from there huh?Comments and/or opinions?

ive always wondered that myself. monotone ftw.

My thoughts are that the two tone was pushed by Pontiac early on in the Vibe's history because it was originally marketed as a "small SUV." The plastic sides were reminiscent of the Aztek (unfortunately), and others, like the early Chevy Avalanches, Subaru Outbacks and Honda Elements.I think you don't see any 2009s with two tone because the Vibe is now one of GM's fuel efficient models, and marketed as such. The whole "SUV" look doesn't go far when you're marketing towards a crowd looking for mileage.

It would hurt less if that section of the body panel got scratched, etc...Sort of like armour.I personally would like it.The 09's are a big perfect panel, sleek lines, but vulnerable to any cosmetic damage.

Any scratch/ding on the gray plastic will just ArmorAll out. A scratch/ding on painted plastic........is a scratch/ding. We've had both Vibes, mono-tone and two-tone and prefer the two-tone. Less paint to wax and the gray plastic is quick and easy to apply tire dressing to. click

I always liked the two-tones more... Mainly for durability when it comes to the morons that surround you. The one thing I don't particularly care for with the unpainted cladding is its tendency to fade and look like dump after a few years. But that seems to happen on most cars that has this type of material.

Mold In Color parts are considerably cheaper than painted ones for several reasons, the most obvious is the cost of the paint itself (which isn't cheap), it's application and all the equipment necessary to paint / bake it etc. There are also costs associated with color matching certifications, additional part numbers to produce/manage/stock etc. There is also more parts for GM's assembly plant to manage, more dunnage space required or ILVS costs..... If there are facia, frt flares, frt door claddings, rockers, rear door claddings, bodyside claddings, and rear facia, in 6 or so colors, you are talking about a lot of new parts to manage.Aside from the cost, it is also an asthetic decision. Some people think MIC parts give the vehicle a more rugged look, others think it looks cheap. The current trend seems to be getting away from MIC trim parts in favor of painted.As a side note, it's funny that someone mentioned the assneck. Whenever you put MIC parts on a car, you have to put a grain (or texture) on the mold, or the parts woudn't look good on the car. Usually when you have a choice between painted or MIC parts, you have to make two sets of molds so one can be textured, and one isn't. Pontiac was in such a hurry to un-ugly that car that they never bothered to make new molds... they just painted over the grain.... (very hack). It looks terrible, but I guess the whole car does, so what would be the point in making new molds.

Quote, originally posted by ColonelPanic »..........The one thing I don't particularly care for with the unpainted cladding is its tendency to fade and look like dump after a few years. But that seems to happen on most cars that has this type of material.Some vinyl or tire dressing will keep the unpainted cladding looking good. 3 + years under the West Texas desert sun and the cladding still looks good and it only takes 5 min to spread a little on. click

Yeah, it does work good, just extra effort. I put on some Stoner TrimShine on the cladding for the first time a couple weeks ago and it brought the plastic back to life. Looked good, not sure how long it will stay that way.

Much easier than waxing/polishing paint.

I always wonder "why" whenever I see an Aztek... WTH would they maks sucha fugly vehical... lol..

I couldn't agree more... the Aztec is indeed rough on the eyes. IMHO the bean-counters killed the Aztec, not the designers or engineers. If you look at the original 1999 concept vehicle (pic below), it's not nearly hideous as the end product on the road today. The concept was green lighted by GM based on the concept vehicle, but to save cost it had to be a derivative of GM's Transport minivan. The dimensional constraints of that platform lead to the goofy proportions, and botched styling. I saw the Aztec before it was released to the public and I thought that even though they spent all the $ developing it, they should save themselves the embarrassment and scrap it before the public sees it.I actually hear they aren't bad vehicles to own.... the best part being: when you're driving it you don't have to look at it.

My paren'ts owned an Aztek, and it was really a nice vehichle. Just like everyone else though, it suckde to look at it, butas either a passenger or driver it was really nice.

Quote, originally posted by shemp »I couldn't agree more... the Aztec is indeed rough on the eyes. IMHO the bean-counters killed the Aztec, not the designers or engineers. If you look at the original 1999 concept vehicle (pic below), it's not nearly hideous as the end product on the road today. The concept was green lighted by GM based on the concept vehicle, but to save cost it had to be a derivative of GM's Transport minivan. The dimensional constraints of that platform lead to the goofy proportions, and botched styling. I saw the Aztec before it was released to the public and I thought that even though they spent all the $ developing it, they should save themselves the embarrassment and scrap it before the public sees it.I have to agree, the Aztek concept vehicle was very good looking and I would have considered it, but then I loved the Isuzu VehiCross too. I can certainly see what they took from the conept, but I agree, they watered it down too much and made it not quite unique enough, and just oddball enough to make a lot of folks hate it.And it's too bad, that concept vehicle had a lot going for it.Diane