Before we test our headline hypothesis, let’s clarify what we’re after. The question is not which car was Bill Mitchell’s favorite, or even his best. It’s a stab at determining which car most represents Mitchell’s innate artistic sensibility; the one that might best grace his tombstone: this is Bill Mitchell. And although the 1966 Riviera might not be the obvious answer, or the one that others would pick, he did leave us a hint.
Let’s we get one fact out of the way, before others point it out. Bill Mitchell didn’t spend his day designing cars at a drawing table. But unlike his predecessor Harley Earl, Mitchell actually was a designer, and had been a very successful one at GM since 1935. And when he took over as head of GM’s Design Department in December of 1958, he made profound changes in the way things were done, unleashing a dramatic output of designs and creativity.
Unlike Earl, Mitchell was one of the guys, and he knew how to get what he wanted in a more direct manner. And it’s clear that many of the resulting designs more immediately reflect his personal taste. Earl may have picked winners from what was shown him, but Mitchell’s methods were more involved. Might explain why so many GM cars of the early sixties featured red interiors.
This is not a comprehensive review of Mitchell’s vast legacy. But let’s pick just a couple of runners-up to our task. The 1959 Corvette Sting Ray certainly deserves consideration. It reflects Mitchell’s obsession with sharks, and in a highly successful manner. It became the basis for the seminal 1963 Corvette Sting Ray, as well as a distant foreshadowing of its successor, the Mako Shark and the 1968 production Sting Ray. But ultimately, the shark influence was a passing one, and mostly limited to the Corvette.
And the 1963 Riviera is certainly a competitor for the title of Mitchell’s finest work. It represents his true coming-out party, since the 1961 – 1962 GM cars didn’t quite give him the proper scope for something really bold and totally Mitchell. But the opportunity to create GM’s first personal luxury coupe certainly did, and it is a true winner for its clear and bold lines, classic proportions, and fine details.
The 1963 – 1965 Riviera has been mentioned as being one of Mitchell’s favorite cars more than once, and no doubt it was. But again, there’s a difference between what one prefers to what most represents one. It’s sometimes hard or even painful to see one’s real self, like looking in the mirror without the rose colored glasses. Not that this applies to the 1966 Riviera (this one with its retractable headlights un-retracted). True, some find it distinctly inferior to the original. Well, sequels to brilliant inspirations are hard. Michelangelo could move unto something quite different after his David. Mitchell didn’t have that luxury. There had to be another Riviera, and another…
And certainly what followed the ’66 – ’67 became ever less successful. How come? And what’s that got to do with the search for an answer? Freedom; or the lack of it. Mitchell was not one who like constraints to his out-sized exuberance. And within a few years, that’s what came crashing in from all sides: five mile bumpers, downsizing, safety regulations, CAFE. Mitchell’s career with GM ended in 1977, but in some respects it ended well before then. Don’t fence me in.
Before we get to some of those, lets just say that Mitchell’s interest and inspiration did wander a bit, especially when it came to the Riviera. While the ’66 had the benefit of being a totally new body, and all the possibilities that went with that, the subsequent refreshes got ever less appealing, and less true to the inspiring vision it started with. The ’68s were saddled with the loop bumper that became a corporate mania for a few years beginning in 1968. It seems so decidedly un-Mitchellesque. Were they a warm-up exercise for the five-mile bumpers soon to come?
Let’s just say that the loop bumpers very effectively destroyed the highly sculptural 1966 front end. Love it or not, it was one of the more bold, expressive and unabashed front ends ever, reflecting the Mitchell personality mighty well indeed. And unlike so many of “his” designs, it doesn’t owe as much to classic British cars or fish. I’m not sure who first sketched it, but they must have know he would like it.
Not that it was the only thing to like. Mitchell obviously liked hips. The biggest revolution in American car design of that whole era started with a chaste little bulge on the side of the ’63 Pontiacs, and turned into the Coke-bottle armada of 1965. But the ’66 Riviera synthesizes its sharp edges and crease with the new rotundness in the best way possible.
Yes, the 1967 Eldorado is a study of the more extreme end of one of Mitchell’s two personalities : sharp edged and rounded. And there would be others in that razor-edged vein. But as fascinating and compelling as they can be, it does get a bit old, like sitting in one of those wild artistic chairs one might see at MoMA, but just never gets really comfortable. Or less so, with more seat time.
No, the ’66 Riviera just sits on its generous haunches and everything flows; edges miraculously turn into curves; and vice versa. And planes…look how many there are here. Given that this Riviera and the Eldorado above it share the same basic E-Body shell (along with the ’66 Toronado), it’s truly remarkable how different the are too.
No wonder Mitchell bemoaned the wretched shrunken GM clones in the eighties in his retirement. Not on his watch. No one would mistake a ’66 Riviera for a Buick Special, handsome as it was too.
Let’s talk a bit about the Riviera’s other qualities before we get back to speculations. Obviously, this one’s eyes are a bit droopy, but here’s a video that shows how they’re supposed to work. The Riviera’s E-Body may have been shared with the been shared with the Toronado and Eldorado, but Buick was havin nothing to do with their front wheel drive. The Riviera wisely stayed true to its traditional rwd, which resulted in a dynamically superior vehicle. It’s not like the lack of a central tunnel made any real difference in a four-passenger luxury coupe.
1966 marked the last year for the “nailhead” V8, in 425 cubic inch form (7 L) making 340 (gross) hp. The Buick V8 may have been legendary (full story here), but its odd “half a hemi” pent-roof combustion chamber was ill suited for the coming emission regs. In 1967, Buick went to a completely new engine family. The nailhead’s reign ended up being quite short, a mere fourteen years. Wedge heads were the way to go, for both performance and emissions, as Olds and Chevy showed. Oddballs like the Chrysler poyspheres and the Buick nailhead were quickly shown to be inferior. Not that the 425 inch V8 wasn’t a fine runner. But the 430 inch replacement for 1967 was more powerful and efficient, which helped overcome the couple of hundred pounds the second gen Riviera had put on.
The one place the ’66 Riviera was clearly not superior to its predecessor was in the interior. Starting with this vintage, GM luxury coupes began a long decline in interior quality and ambiance, partly for cost reasons, and also because safety regs and other demands shifted resources. The ’63 – ’65 Riviera interior was a true gem; the ’66 was more along the lines of rare earth. At least this example has the buckets and console; bench and Astro-seats were now also on tap.
With the optional GS package, which included a heavy duty suspension package, the Riviera could deliver a reasonable facsimile of sporting qualities, given that was not its primary intended role. By 1966, anyone really wanting serious performance and handling knew where to look. The Riviera was realistic about its target buyers’ expectations, and delivered; and then some.
And although the Riviera could never catch its intended target, the Thunderbird, in terms of sales, this second generation did sell a bit better than the first generation, and the sales kept increasing for a couple more years until the wind was knocked out of its sails. Or was it the lack of a stylistic compass?
Let’s get back to testing our hypothesis. For that we need to look at the Riviera in profile. And when I do, and squint a bit, I start to see Bill Mitchell’s soul (looking in its usually-hidden eyes certainly won’t do). Here, the dramatically swept roof line, the long hood, the clean flanks, that crouching posture, the tasteful chrome accents; it just really all comes together here. And not one bit of affected ornamentation, like the ’63′s fake side air inlets.
Purity of line yet dynamic; muscular yet elegant; sporty yet luxurious; flamboyant yet restrained; knife edged yet curvaceous. The ’66 Riviera epitomizes the whole styling trend of that GM era; all the full-size and mid-sized coupes of all the GM brands are distilled here in their most pure essence.
As I said, Mitchell did leave us a clue; a pretty obvious one at that. In 1977, as a parting memorial to his stylistic sensibility and era, he left the Pontiac Phantom as a living remembrance to GM. In his words: “Realizing that with the energy crisis and other considerations, the glamor car would not be around for long. I wanted to leave a memory at General Motors of the kind of cars I love”. And although there are certainly differences, the production car I most see in the Phantom is the 1966 Riviera.
Clearly, the front end of the Phantom reflects the Pontiac style of the Colonnade era, which was also necessitated by aerodynamics and bumper requirements. But when my eyes take in the the overall shape and feel of the Phantom’s profile, or follow the lines of its blade fenders and sleek sides to those haunches; well, I’m there, again. The Phantom was a help, but in the end it wasn’t really necessary. We’d gotten to know his sensibilities and preferences pretty well by by 1966, actually. The Riviera made that quite obvious.

























![1979_Datsun_510_hatchback_(3)[1]](http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1979_Datsun_510_hatchback_31-50x50.jpg)

I always looked at the 1966-67 Riviera as a “softening” of the original. Like a sand castle just a little bit worn down by the surf, certain sharp details remained (like the W front end) but with the sprouting of hips, bulges and a relaxed roofline. I think the only decided way that it’s is definitely inferior was the interior. Looking at the two interiors side to side, the 1963-64 one is particularly lavish and sporty, on a level I find even preferable to Cadillac’s of those years. The 1966-67 interior wouldn’t look out of place in a Skylark GS. Which actually highlights how well assembled the Mid Sized Buicks were during that time.
I think the debate doesn’t just center around the Riviera, but all GM cars 1965-67 getting mixed emotions compared to 1961-64 models. There were improvements, but there was also the beginning of parts sharing and cheaper parts for cost savings. There’s something more emotionally arresting about early 1960s GM products compared to the Mid 1960s offerings (well, with the exception of I’d take a 1965 Olds over a 1962 “Double Chin” Olds).
I see echoes of this design in the fenders of the 1994 Riviera. I’m unsure if it was intentional, but the blade fenders and seem like a homage to me.
If memory serves, the second-generation Riviera was developed by Dave Holls, who was chief of the Buick studio at the time. I think its general form was heavily influenced by the Toronado whose body shell it shared — they also had the same windshield and roof upper. (Ironically, Holls claimed later that the Riv’s fastback sail panels were not Toronado-based/influenced, although they look a lot alike, and make the Riv and Toronado look more similar than the otherwise are.) The larger dimensions seem to have been primarily a corporate dictate; I don’t know if Mitchell had an opinion about the Riviera getting bigger for ’66, but he definitely fought it for the Toronado.
In the late Jerry Flint’s book, Dream Machine – the Golden Age of American Automobiles, 1946-1965, Mitchell was quoted as saying that the “sales guys said we lost a lot of sales because it (the Riviera) had only four seats, so we widened it.” He supposedly wasn’t too happy about it.
The Riv from 66 to 71 never grabbed me. I don’t find it ugly, it’s just not appealing.
The face does get my attention though, I’ve always been a fan of the angry look.
I think the ’66-’67 works better; the changes made in ’68 and ’69 are less appealing, and the ’70 strikes me as almost prissy.
(There was an interesting discussion on AUWM a few weeks ago about whether or not that body shell was originally intended to carry over into 1970. I really don’t know, but I’m curious now.)
The 70 is the worst to carry the Rivi badge IMO. I think it is highly plausible that it was a case of being forced to dress up the old model for another year when what was originally intended to be the 70 was vetoed or delayed.
GM from about 1963 until the “real” downsizing of 1985 that shrunk all the big cars save the Caprice Classic, could do no wrong stylistically in my eyes. I’ve always thought that GMs styling during those years was generally “better” across all product lines than the other manufacturers.
FWIW I love the styling of all Rivieras – except the 86 to 93 cars.
This car is sooooooo much better looking than the 67-69 Thunderbird.
I have always liked this generation of Riviera. There is a purity about the design to the early version of this car that is hard to describe. Although I prefer the earlier interiors, I can see how a more minimalist approach works on the interior of this car.
I had never paid attention to the headlight mechanism on these, had always assumed a simple set of doors covering stationary sealed beams. Wrong. These must have been a nightmare to keep aimed properly.
Wow, Paul, super article. This Sting Ray photo you took is museum-quality.
At the time the ’66 didn’t catch my attention like the iconic ’63. Now looking at your photos, I can see it, this car is even better looking. Both cleaner and more emotional.
How could I have missed the hidden headlight mechanism on this car? Rolling out in front of the grille, insane! Anyone who skipped the video just has to have a look. Most cars look pretty strange with hidden headlights exposed. This Riv looks great, maybe even better.
Googling around just now I came across this 1974 interview from the Chicago Sun-Times. Mitchell’s expressing his views on current and future cars and culture at a very uncertain and pivotal time. Turns out he was 100% correct.
Remarkably prescient.
The top sellers today are Silverado, F-Series and Camry.
PN, is this car for sale????
I’ll crawl on my hands and feet in the snow (slight exaggeration) for this automobile!
I’ve got a thing for lots of `1966 GM products, this Riv, the Toronado, the Cutlass, in fact, I’ve now made up my mind that one of those will be replacing my previous dream jalopy: 1967 Mustang fastback.
I just shoot cars when I see them. And I didn’t notice a For Sale sign; I doubt it is.
Awesome beast that 66 it looks better to me with the lights exposed.
I Never realized how much the 74-75 Montego MX 2 door coupe mimics this era Riviera.
It doesn’t do it with the working clean style of this, but it must have been cribbed inspired originally by the 66 Riviera.
A very popular DJ in St. Louis in the mid-to-late 1960′s owned a gold Riviera – I got a good look at it during one of his personal appearances in 1965 when I was 14. The car was incredibly beautiful, it was gold with a matching interior – maybe custom – I don’t know, but I never saw anything like it.
Back in a time when American cars were still done right, but with storm clouds on the horizon.
You’re killing me, Paul, with wonderful features like this! Thank you!
This is a beautiful car, but I’d still rather have a ’66 Toro.
Well done, Paul, and I like that you found one without the vinyl roof. Those things were just cop-outs, visually breaking up massive cars more cheaply than two-tone paint. A car designed this well doesn’t need the help.
I still think I take a 63 or 64…with real Kelsey-Hayes wires and narrow whites. Maybe the last American car to look good with real wires?
Maybe the last American car to look good with real wires?
I actually like “square” Panther based Town Cars with wire wheels and Cadillac Fleetwoods wearing true wire wheels.
Those do look nice with the real wires, I was surprised when Cadillac dropped them from the option list when the Brougham/Fleetwood was redesigned in 1993, I have seen a few of them with wires, and it still looks good on them too.
This is one of the all-time great looking cars from the General. It’s too bad the styling was ruined by the loop bumpers of the ’68-’69 versions, and even more so by the silly side trim and fender skirts of the ’70 model.
However, I still think the ’66 Toronado makes a bolder styling statement than the Riv, with the pronounced wheel arches and the C-pillars that flow without a cut line into the quarter panels.
Frankly, although the ’63-’64 Riviera is a classic, it’s just a little too ‘bold’ and makes too much of statement for my tastes. Although bigger, the ’66-’67 is a cleaner, smoother, more understated, tasteful looking car.
Then, choosing between the ’66-’67 Riviera and Toronado (or even Eldorado) is a tough call. They’re all beautiful and definitely among the zenith of GM styling. The sixties’ Thunderbirds were okay, but it’s always mystified me (particularly since the T-bird was saddled with the lackluster 390 engine in most cases) as to how they could have outsold the competing GM products of the time.
Personally, I give the edge to the Riviera (except for the front end, where the Toronado beats it). I would have liked to have seen the ’67 Riviera (better engine than the ’66) with the Toronado’s front end.
Personally the Phantom screams Toro rather than Rivi, not saying I don’t see a little Rivi just that the Toro cues come across much stronger to me.
My grandfather had both a ’63 and ’66 and I have driven both. The ’63 was white with a blue interior (I miss interiors in colors other than black or tan!) and I preferred driving it. The ’66 was dark blue with a black interior – this was the first car that I drove that had no (triangular) vent window as part of the front window. My grandfather missed them because he was a smoker and the vent windows were handy for constant ventilation.
I agree, the interior of the ’63 was superior to the ’66.
A wheel-cover was lost for the ’66 – I went to the local Buick dealer (Highfield Buick, Decatur, IL) and ordered a new one – it had sort of a turbine design with a “spinner”. I was horrified at the cost – about $50.
The loss of vent windows was horrible if you were a smoker or rode in a smoker’s backseat. My Dad smoked a lot. Ashes out the long side window of a big 2 door were often sucked back into the car at the back of the window. My college roommate set the back seat of a Duster on fire when he flicked a butt out and did not realize that it got sucked back into the car.
I smoked for a time myself and there was nothing better than the vent window that would create a little vacuum to draw smoke (and flicked ashes) out of the car, particularly in combination with fresh air coming into the car. Even as a nonsmoker, I miss them.
Another great esoteric history idea: vent windows, including the Ford power vents of the late 70s and the optional ones from Chrysler in the 70s and on Panthers and Fox sedans in the 80s.
Attention PAUL: I think your email account has been hacked. If you happen to see this, send me a message from a non-MSN account and I’ll forward you the weirdness that landed in my box this morning.
I got one too. In fact I have gotten multiple ones in response to my warning emails to you that give more and more details about the phony situation and how imperative it is for me to send you money.
I just found out about this. And I can’t access my e-mail account; they’ve hijacked it and taken over my password. I’m trying to figure out what to do about it, and contacted MSN. Fun times!
Yeah, I got that email too. So looks like you’ve settled this?
Paul, is it once again safe to write emails to you? Sorry that you had to deal with this…
I’ve reset my password. But some of my recent activity seems lost. I doubt there’s any harm in sending me an e-mail though.
I dunno, Paul, I hear my friends in ITland telling you to close the account and start fresh…
Me too.
Beautiful car. I’ve always loved the first and second generation Rivvies. I even like the boattails, even as controversial as they are.
When I was in high school in the late 80′s, a buddy’s neighbor had a ’66 with the Grand Sport package. 425 nailhead with dual carbs and that weird spaceship-looking air cleaner. Unfortunately it had major rear-end damage and never ran. The car continued to rot in his apartment driveway until my second year of college. If I knew then what I know now, I probably would’ve made him an offer.
I want to like the featured black ’66, I really and truly do.
But I effing hate hate hate HATE, -HATE- those wheel covers on it. Christ those are hideous!
I don’t give a crap if they’re OEM, they RUIN that car for me. I can’t even look at the side profile to see if I really like the car because my eyes keep getting drawn to those godawful wheel covers.
I love Bill Mitchell, and I especially love the late ’70s to early ’90s “sheer look” and all that typified by the ’76 Seville and everything that followed it within the GM stable, but if Bill Mitchell spec’d those frigging hubcaps on this ’66 Riv…god damn it…
Tired of being Tactful, auto commenter changes handle to “Mr. Tell-It-Like-It-Be.”
What do you suggest, sir? Can we throw on some Magnums and put you in a new Buick this year?
It needs the ever popular Buick road wheels in the worst way, its strange that it does not have them, since it is a bucket seat and deluxe interior car.
The ’66 Riviera is beautiful, but I’ve long thought the ’67 Eldorado was the ultimate Bill Mitchell-mobile. Looking at the photo of him in that wild red suit confirms it for me.
Though I did once own a ’69 Riviera, it never struck me how much the ’66-70 Riv predicted the colonnades until seeing your photos…
Whats really surprising is that someone as outlandish as Mitchell was able to flourish in a company that was as deeply conservative as GM was in the 1960′s, and I mean not from a product standpoint, since GM did experiment with a lot of new technology in the 60′s, I mean from a management point of view, if you’ve ever seen a GM Annual Stockholders report from the era you would know, I have one from 1966, look for a picture of the board of directors, they are all in their eary 60′s and really conservative looking, but it was often said that Mitchell was able to really sell his designs to GM brass, but he almost always had good stuff to sell.
The interiors on the 66-67 Rivieras are more interesting than you would believe, you just need to have a closer look, they all did come with full, oil, temp and battery gauges, plus the very cool drum speedometer, plus if you had cruise control there was a little window on the side of the drum speedometer to set the speed, the 63-65 Rivieras havd more wood inside, but only if it was a deluxe interior, as many of them were, base interior Rivieras had the same flat door panels that you would find in a LeSabre and they would lack the really cool back seat door handles that came on the deluxe interior models.
Hey, if the Riv is good enough for Spock, it’s good enough for me! http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/spock-car.jpg
Looking at these beaufiful pictures has not changed my belief that this is one of the greatest car designs of all time. In black it looks like a crouching panther. When I was in college I drove a new black 66 back from Florida. I did not like the attention the car drew. This convinced me that I would never want a luxury car of my own. I would still like to have one of these though.
I had a 67 Rivi that I bought in Rhode Island back in 1972 for $1100. I drove it up and down the east coast for 3 years. It seemed like it had no end to it’s power and top end. Unfortunately it was totaled by a family member while I was stationed overseas. In 1996 I happened to come across a cherry 66 that the origional owner had for sale. I bought it and still have it. I don’t see any difference in the performance between the 430 and the nailhead. Granted, I am older now and the 66 is not an everyday ride, but I can’t resist giving it a workout every now and then.
I had a 66 when I was in college. The summer between my junior & senior year (1970) I shipped it to Belgum and drove it all through Europe. It did not exactly blend into the country side. I remember seeing the drum speedo sitting between 100 &120MPH (Not Kilometers) on an autostada in Italy then seeing a Ferrari blow my my doors off. Unfortunately my Riviera did not have the optional casters on the door handles for the curves but I still loved that car. I sold it in Jerusalem in May 1971 & a short time later the electrical system shorted and it burned to the ground. Now I am just finishing a recreation of the car…same color and all except it is a 67 with the 430 instead of the nail head. Hopefully I will feel 40 years younger when I drive it!
I am the proud owner of one of these ’66 Rivs in teal, and even though I love my ’63 as well, it was great to see this article….such grat cars with amazing lines, and I feel the author is right about Mitchell’s connection to this design…I must sell mine now, which breaks my heart but I hope something else bails me out so I can keep it!!