Here’s another in my series of curbside cadavers. As much as I’m not exactly a fan of these, it’s always a bit sad to see another old car take a KO hit to the chin.
Here’s the damage: it may not have full-on Renaultitis, and may well have drive here, but it has no future. One less E Body, and there’s not exactly very many left of them.
This Riviera’s stubbier 1986 predecessor was the subject of my very first GM Deadly Sin. Those have become genuine endangered species. The question this ’89 version with its extended front and rear ends, and more distinctive C pillar is: why wasn’t it like this in the first place, in 1986? The same question of course applies to the equally stubby ’85 Cadillac FWD sedans too. Those extensions didn’t exactly weigh huge amounts, and undoubtedly improved their aerodynamics, so fuel savings would have been minuscule to zilch. This would have been significantly better received in 1986.
The outside might have been improved some, but the interior was still unattractive, at least to my eyes. These GM cars had interior styling that was so out of tune with the trends of the mid-late 80s, when everything was becoming more rounded and organic and Euro-inspired. Their boxy and fussy design really turns me off, that steering wheel most especially so. When I briefly had a Seville of this vintage at my disposal, getting into it from my 300E was a huge contrats and let down, in both style and quality of materials.
Still looks healthy from this angle. Bye, bye, Riviera!
Back in the 1980s, a co-worker of mine bought a new 1986 Riviera. He had no end of problems with it, including the notorious GCC dashboard screen. Terrible car. Car and Driver once published an access code for a “secret menu” in the GCC which would show all sorts of diagnostic and performance parameters that one could change. It could have been a great way to screw up your Riv if you were careless.
The first hackable car?
You couldn’t screw up your car be entering the diagnostics mode because you can’t make in permanent changes there. It was just a way to look at live data which is something that you could do in the Digital Fuel Injection Cadillacs too.
This diagnostic mode was still offered at least as late as 1996 in the Fleetwood, probably longer. On my ’94, with the climate Control off you press and hold “off” and “warmer” until it comes up with diagnostics. There are lists of codes for the engine/powertrain, hvac system, body module, all kinds of things. I recently easily diagnosed an AC problem as a faulty blend door motor. Occasionally I’ll use it to check engine temp or other sensors. My only complaint is that you have to turn off the AC to use it.
It’s a great feature to have, as long as you keep the cheat sheet of codes in the glove box.
On my ’95 SLS, you didn’t have to turn it off. It would stay in whatever setting you had going when you entered that mode.
Nice, it’s weird the little differences between models.
Primarily between Cadillac and every other GM division. I used to work at Delco Electronics, and Cadillac drove us crazy because they wanted to be special. Their unique engine ECMs (early 1980s) had twice the number of trouble codes that every other division had (which were all shared and common between them).
Aww shucks, wonder what the driver hit or what hit the Buick?
And that gawdawful “royal blue” with navy interior that GM put on so many cars in that era.
In my opinion the exterior is kind of attractive, but that boxy interior is a mess. The thin-shell seats never looked very comfy to me, but I’ve never sat in them.
Love the blue colors, better then the boring 50 shades of gray of new cars. Today’s buyers just want to fit in and seem to have bland taste.
Deep dark blue metallics and deep dark red metallics are about all the color you can get on new cars, and they’re equally or more boring and predictable to me than the neutrals. Every color needs to be classy and sophisticated now, can’t have non metallics close to the rainbow shades, heaven forbid…
The seats were one of the high points of these cars. I had an ’89 Riv with the exact interior pictured. Seats were very adjustable, and I found them quite good even after several hours.
The seats in my ’87 were probably the most comfortable I ever had. I also enjoyed the interior styling, but I guess I’m out of touch with the trends.
When you show up at the funeral of an enemy, are you there to pay respects or just confirm that they are really dead?
I have one person who has been in my professional life that I would certainly attend their funeral to confirm their departure.
“I did not attend the funeral, but I sent a letter saying I was in favor of it.” – Mark Twain
That is sad, this car had clearly beaten the odds to this point when its luck finally ran out. It looks to me like it has been pretty well cared for, especially on the tidy inside with its dash pad, steering wheel cover and pine scent air fresheners. I agree the interior may not have been the cutting edge of style and quality in 1989, but it does seem to have held up reasonably well for almost 30 years (unless it is an exceptionally low mile, always garaged car). The dash pads and steering covers are popular in the Southwest, often covering sun-damaged parts but also often accompanied by seat covers on leather cars. This leather looks great.
I hated the 86 Riviera and was just OK with the 89 rear facelift. Hindsight, though, has given me a better opinion of them. After years of looking at the various downsized FWD GM cars, and the other many various FWD cars of all makes from the 80’s and early 90’s, I’ve come to feel that the 89-93 Riviera is one of the best looking of all of them. The nice flow of the beltline, especially, the way the edge of the hood smoothly integrates to bottom of the front window and then back into the trunk, while having a nice curviness that is reminiscent of the classic Rivieras. The 89 revisions gave it good proportions it was lacking when introduced. I also like the wheels on this car, that design is good looking and works great with the car.
I had thought that they got rid of the CRT screen controls with the refresh, but this one looks like it still has it. Anybody know when they phased that out? I’d be really curious if it still works fully on this car. Long term durability of that system would be my biggest concern about owning one of these.
’89 was the body refresh, and also the last year for the CRT controls. ’90 saw the interior revision, with the more rounded dash and conventional controls. Makes it really easy to tell an ’89 if you can see inside.
I have had my 89 riviera since new it has 150,000 miles and the last 15 years has only been used for occasional weekend drives I have never had to replace the CRT and is still working great. however my tape player packed it in 3 years ago wish it still worked
Also, the CRT controls were not reliable. I had an ’89 Riv myself in 2005. It was on its second or third CRT by then (I know the previous owners), and it died right after I got it.
Fun fact, though-the controls all still worked just fine. You just had to know where on the blank black panel to touch to work them. I learned where the volume controls for the radio were. For the climate, I’d look up the location of the Temp Down button in the book, hold it down for about 30 seconds until I knew it was at Max Cold, then press Temp Up exactly 8 times to get it to 72. Then I’d hit Auto and hope I never had to touch it again.
Seems like a labelmaker would come in quite handy in such a situation (although it wouldn’t be very aesthetically appealing).
In fact, if this was a common occurrence, an enterprising individual could easily come up with a prefabricated overlay.
My buddy that owned the car before I did tried that. The buttons were pretty close together, and the overlay interfered with pressing some and created ghost presses of others.
Luckily, across all screens the buttons were arranged in the same grid. It was just a question of remembering which did what.
I’m always torn when I see something like this, because for better or worse, they don’t make ’em like that anymore. I never can decide whether it’s sadder to see a car like this go out in a blaze of shattered glass and bent metal or to see it fulfill its destiny of inevitable catastrophic failure of some major component.
Just last night on the way home I spotted an ’89ish Chrysler New Yorker still rolling along under its own power. Having had much experience with those when they were new, I first had a twinge of nostalgia, then marveled that its Ultradrive was still keeping it moving and its Mitsu 3.0 V6 wasn’t leaving a trail of blue smoke behind it. Its young driver did have all the windows down on a 90+ degree day though, as testament to the often troublesome HVAC systems I remember them having. Again, I wonder whether that car will give up the ghost when that Ultradrive finally craps out or if it will be retired in some more dramatic but less predictable way. Which is sadder? Damned if I know.
These have always struck me as the inspiration, of sorts, for the smaller Somerset. And yet, even the bigger car looks squished down. And buyers seemed to agree as the later versions got a bit longer.
Hated hated hated these when new (as my father had the 1985 version of this car) but now I’m sad to see another one off the streets.
Ummmmmmm maybe he’ll fix it? i would, Those Rivieras are few and far in between. they are nice cars and very luxo. GM did a great job in adding length to the car and improving the overall look of the car. Although i prefer the Eldorado, the Riviera was and is a sharp car.
Good luck finding the parts, though. ’89 was the best year of this generation, and even then I think they only sold 21,000 of them.
Part aren’t a problem- There’s over twenty front end assemblies listed on car-part.com, with the cheapest one listed for a reasonable $300. However, labor and materials will probably kick the repair cost over $3,500.
The better choice? This matching blue one for a reasonable $3,100 “wife forces sale”:
https://orlando.craigslist.org/cto/d/1989-buick-riviera/6625602116.html
I think this is the winner. Pick up the dark blue car as a driver, and buy the light blue car for a song and use it for spares.
The biggest issue would be that they’re located on opposite ends of the country!
The car looks pretty good except at the actual collision point. This car is not beyond saving, but the question is why would anyone go thru the time, trouble, and expense. The shut line on the right side door still looks pretty straight and most of the damage looks confined to the right fender. The suspension also looks okay. I wouldn’t pay a body shop to do it. It could be repaired economically by a DIYer who finds a donor car at the local “pick a part” or a parts car. Just a lot of work. The car may have been loved at one time, but it is probably headed to the scrapyard.
A real shame since it does look to be in otherwise solid shape. The problem is, as stated, it just wouldn’t be worth the time, money, or effort for the average driver.
Hopefully, an adept DIYer can be found to keep the old girl going. Otherwise, it’s a scrapper.
My 96 GMC Sierra, in exceptional condition for its year, is written off by my province’s insurance company after a minor deer hit.
It’s really a shame. I can’t bring myself to let it go.
You could always buy it back from the insurance company, and fix it yourself. Or depending on the damage, just leave it as-is.
I know some people who have done that. The best story was in the late 90’s, a friend had a mid-80’s Ford Tempo “totaled” by hail damage. The damage wasn’t even that bad – mostly dinged up the trim around the windows a bit, but the car was at the absolute bottom of the depreciation curve by then. The insurance payout was $350, and he bought it back for $100, and got several more years out of it before giving it away (still running too).
I will admit it’s sad going to the local U-pull it place and seeing nicer older cars in there that were obviously totaled out for what was very minor damage.
The Toronado and Cadillacs were “fixed” by their lengthening, but I’m really on the fence about the aesthetic improvements of the Riviera as featured. Only area I find improved was the thicker C pillar, which made the formal roofline work much better, but I absolutely despise the droopy tail and puckered lips shape of the taillights, I actually prefer the deliberately anynomous blunt design of the 86 in that area. Also, once again, GM made the worst looking wheels of all time during this period, no wheel should ever be convex and stick out past the tire, and that was the bulk of their FWD designs.
Some commenters are more optimistic than I about the repairability, or at least the proper means of it on a “I own a 30 year old Buick” budget the owner probably has. Even a cosmetic repair will require a bulk of parts from a donor Riviera, which if you can find one you’d be better off using this one as the parts car and transferring the good parts from it on the undamaged body of the other one.
I think you’ve hit on the best-case scenario, i.e., using this as a donor car for another Riviera of the same vintage where the body is in similar (but undamaged) solid condition. This one would be great to source replacements for worn-out/broken interior and/or mechanical parts.
Maybe there’s a website for these. It would be the perfect place to put up an ad.
I’m the opposite. I actually prefer the stubby Toronado over the restyled 90, but much prefer the 89 Riv over the 86. The 86 Toro was distinctive and somehow the stubby rear works on it for me. The restyled 90 looks like a watered down Riviera. I agree the 88 Eldorado was an improvement. No accounting for taste.
There was enough difference between the Toronado and Cutlass Calais that it wasn’t so bad.
But, as the Deadly Sin highlights, the difference between the Riviera and Somerset wasn’t nearly as defined. It was as if GM hadn’t learned a thing about the Cimarron fiasco and repeated it nearly identically four years later. It’s one of the GM lowlights during the eighties. The cost-cutting reached depths never before seen at the company (but they always paid a dividend!) and it really cost them. By the end of Roger Smith’s tenure, GM had lost a whopping 10% market share.
I actually prefer the 86 Toronado too, I think the roofline is better, I like the front end better, and I like the beltline better, but the restyle to me was much more convincing for the intended purpose of making the basic car appear longer and less stubby.
The 89 Riviera’s drooping tail to me defeats the point of the lengthening, as it still looks absurdly short like the previous one at almost every angle. In other words I don’t like either version of this generation Riviera equally.
Agreed that the ’89 refresh of these is how they should have launched in ’86. The refresh pulled the rest of the look together in a way that I found really rather attractive. I have a COAL of my ’89 I’ve been drafting. Convenient these pics are here now-this has the same dark blue leather with suede venting mine had.
And this makes me absolutely sad. I actually really loved my Riv, and I don’t know that I’ve ever seen one in this good of shape (barring the accident damage of course). My condolences to the owner-I’d be heartbroken.
Here’s a good 3/4 nose, just need the grill.
https://cpprohomeoh.car-part.com/image?seller=5088&partGUID=335CEEE4-981B-4880-8B6D-66150214F91B&vehicleGUID=DD2F18D6-8E01-4AA6-AE7E-B79948E67E93&display=1991%20Buick%20Riviera%20Fender%20Assembly-Stock%23%20NY2663
Didn’t own this bodystyle, but had a ’97 in the next bodystyle. Loved that car, but it fell victim to typical issues that hit GM’s around this time when the years/miles roll on. Nothing catastrophic, but frequent and expensive issues on a car not supported by the aftermarket. 3800 motor was solid, but Supercharger was a $3500 replacement. A single strut for the decklid- $75, no aftermarket.
Replaced by a Grand Marquis that was the polar opposite (no pun intended). No style, but reliable as the day was long.
Yikes are superchargers that much for these? Do the rivieras use the same version as the park aves? Been ? for a nice 1991-6 PA Ultra
Hopefully, the owner(s) who took good care of this car for the bulk of its life didn’t have to deal with the heartbreak of this collision.
Surely some of the GM designers must have cringed, and went through the motions, when they were putting out cars styled like this.
Send it to the crusher, the only good place for it.
I liked these – at least in comparison to the 86. However, the damage was done. The launch was just another failure in the accelerating chain of failures by the General. The botched Vega; the botched Citation; the botched Fiero; the botched diesels ; the botched 8-6-4-2-0 V-8 and on and on. It was around this point that I began to be convinced that GM was doomed. It was maddening.
Surely GM had at that point in history more well-educated and talented engineers and designers than any automotive company in the world. How could they continually fail?
Were all these designs fundamentally flawed from the beginning and no one tried to improve them or stop them from reaching the customer? Or, alternately, were the original designs good, and then nickel-and-dimed reduced to the point of being junk? Regarding the stretched-tail on the Riviera, was there a prophet-of-doom for the original design who was returned from exile after lack of sales proved him right?
How, how, how did things come to this?
I’d love to read a good history of the GM of this era. Does anyone have a recommendation?
This is the best interview about GM I ever read. History of Irv Rybicki and GM from 1921-1985. The quote below explains why GM design was so behind the times. Mostly because they did not want to alienate the “brand.” So instead of competing with other car companies from a clean-sheet. GM finds themselves trying to “evolve” the Brougham era into modern FWD uni-body vehicles.
http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Design/Rybicki_interview.htm
General Motors design staff that hasn’t changed from the days of Harley Earl right up until my tenure in this office: that we maintain the divisional personalities through the years. We try to project those forward without doing a 180 degree turn on the customer. I think it’s important from a marketing point of view because the people who were driving our vehicles today that are one to five years old are still, and feel like they are, members of the General Motors family. An Olds is an Olds is an Olds. If you want to talk about a ’78 or ’80 or an ’85, you recognize an Oldsmobile on the street. Some of our competitors have done a 180 [degree turn]. They have very harsh, stiff-looking automobiles, and then suddenly in one year, they bring out what the media calls a jelly bean.
” These GM cars had interior styling that was so out of tune with the trends of the mid-late 80s, when everything was becoming more rounded and organic and Euro-inspired. ”
Was the interior that out of date or was it a harbinger of things to come?
GM was one of the first to offer touchscreen units in cars. Sure they were primitive and also CRT based but the touch screen was an innovative idea that is still in use today.
I figure most 2018 cars sold in the USA ether have a standard touch screen or one as an option.
The Riv’s touchscreen unit was a trendsetter that is still in use today.
The high center console/shifter design in the Riviera is still alive and well in the modern era.
The boxy interior was still inspiring other car makers into the 2000’s. Look at the boxy dash of an 1989 Riviera and then look at the dash of a 2006 Lincoln Zephyr. The boxy look is still alive and well.
That generation Riviera had a good amount of novel features. On that generation Riv, you did not have to worry about your rear license plate going missing. It slid into a slot under the trunk lid. When the trunk was closed it secured. You could not steal it or lose it by falling off.
Were stolen rear license plates a big problem in the 80s?
They’ve been a problem in Detroit for at least a decade, although it seems to have slowed down quite a lot from what it was five years ago. I imagine it’s a problem anywhere car theft is high.
Drive around Detroit even now and you’ll see a fair amount of vehicles with the plates in the back window instead of mounted to the car.
I wonder why the slide-in license plate holder never caught on. All I can figure is it was too expensive to design the rear deck lid around it. Not to mention that it also meant there would have to be a higher liftover to get into the trunk, unlike a trunklid that had a simple place to mount the license plate when there was a lower liftover height, i.e., flush with the rear bumper.
They could have put in the gimmicky touchscreen in a dash design that didn’t look straight out of 1976. Mind you I don’t think Euroization was the answer either, but these were stuck in a style American cars just stubbornly refused to evolve from for a decade past it’s sell by date, GM being the worst of the bunch because their approach to downsizing during the bulk often 80s was take exactly what was popular in 1979 and make it smaller, backed by the corporate thought that GM dictates trends, and customer tastes won’t change until we tell them to.
This Riv neither pioneered nor trend set with its console, it’s about 25 years late and wasn’t even a leader in its category of the time since the not-stubby 1984 Lincoln Mark VII had a standard tall console with floor shifter too
This Riv neither pioneered nor trend set with a “boxy” dash either, and citing the 2006 Lincoln Zephyr actually made me spit take. The Zephyr dash is a direct homage to the 61 Continental, neither of which look anything like this Riviera’s distinctive period piece large binnacle dash
It’s worth noting that, to this day, many automotive touchscreens are still far from perfect. Some of the worst make you drill-down through multiple menus to get to HVAC/radio/other controls that are much better served by simple, rudimentary dials.
OTOH, there are examples of some new options never before thought of, like the launch control on some of the highest performance Dodge Challengers and Ford Mustangs.
Should be eradicated, like smallpox or polio.
Compare and contrast:
Here is a picture of the interior of the 1963 Buick Riviera. Take a look and then look at the interior on the 86 Riviera.
Put the 63 Rivera in the same showroom with the 86 Riviera – which do you think would sell better?
Not fair! At least as far as I’m concerned, any talk about the merits of the 86 downsize or 86 vs. 89, etc has the unspoken assumption that any of the 80’s or 90’s models are vastly inferior to the great 60’s Riviera’s, especially aesthetically. The 63-65 will always outvalue an 86-92, forevermore. That goes without saying.
I’ll say again, that as fun as it is to rag on the cheapness and lack of appeal in 80’s interiors, the interior of this particular car has held up remarkably well for almost 30 years and someone obviously loved this car.
The world was completely different in 1989.
With that said, it might have taken GM five years to catch-up to the 1958 Thunderbird, the car widely accepted to have created the personal luxury class, but when they did, it was an instant classic and, frankly, the pinnacle.
I mean, c’mon, Mr. Spock drove a 1963 Riviera. You can’t get much cooler than that.
It was better looking than the 86 but not the 85 or last generation. I really can’t see anyone getting one over a v8Mercury cougar. It still looks like the extra was somehow added but not integrated somehow. Like a skinny girl with a huge rear end. I think instead of the 89 being what should have been built in 86, the last generation should have. It would have done well I think. The new cars all need extended fronts and rears. I hate the cut off look. I hated the 86 Riviera and especially hate the 85 olds 98and Cadillac devilles and Fleetwoods.
I’m sure someone would appreciate having those cast wheels to replace a set of the of the fake wires like my wife had on her ’91. These are delightful cars in many ways, great ride, engine and transmission. She had the “pearl” paint and even though the “Riv” was in it’s teens when she had it, everyone knew what she was driving was a cut above.