(This is what started the GM Deadly Sins Series, almost two years ago. I though it would make a nice contrast to the 1964 Riviera CC)
Good morning, class. Welcome to GM’s Deadly Sins 101. In this seminar we will review and analyze some of the most critical blunders GM made over the decades, focusing on the ill-conceived, unreliable, ugly, and just plain mediocre products that destroyed the company. I struggled mightily with the decision as to the first example, given all the boners available to me. But here it is, GM’s Deadly Sin #1: The 1986 Buick Riviera.
Please take a close look at the image on the overhead projector. You see two very similar looking cars, both Buick coupes from the year 1986. They are very close in size, concept, shape, and even surface details. They share the same basic engine. There’s only one really material difference: the price. One of these two cars cost more than twice as much than the other one.
The car on top is a Somerset Regal coupe, which appeared in 1985 and competed with such other august GM compact products like the Pontiac Grand Am and the Olds Cutlass Calais in the popular priced segment (approx. $9K ($18K adjusted)). The fact that it was fairly difficult to distinguish these N-Body cars from one another will undoubtedly be the subject of another GMDS.
The car below it is the Riviera, which GM released in this form one year after(!) the much cheaper Somerset. Its list price started at $20,000 ($39,000 adjusted). Since all of you spent $249 to buy my mandatory Curbside Classics textbook and DVD, you undoubtedly remember the chapter on the 1964 Riviera. It was one of the finest, if not the ultimate, post-war American cars. The Riviera and its stable mates Olds Toronado and Cadillac Eldorado were a belated response to the category that the 1958 Thunderbird first defined: the premium personal coupe.
While the T-Bird eventually lost its way and morphed (several times) into something else, the GM coupes came to own that market segment and generated healthy profits as well as the halo effect for the premium divisions. The success of the Riviera, Toronado and Eldorado were one of the key vital signs of health in GM’s far-distant profitable past.
That’s not to say that there weren’t challenges presented by the changing times, especially the energy crises. While the Riviera started out a reasonable sized 208″ length, it suffered the same obesity crisis along with all of GM’s cars. By 1974, the boat-tailed Riviera was up to 223″. But the successful downsizing of 1979 resulted in a fairly handsome coupe, now with FWD and an available turbocharged 3.8 V6. It wasn’t as stunning as the original, but stunning is hard to replicate. But it was back to the original size, at 206″ overall, and substantially more efficient.
It sold well, too. In its last year, 1985, Buick moved 65k Rivs, the all-time high. And then, disaster arrived. The downsized E-body coupes for 1986 were the knock-out punch after the set up of the 1985 C-body sedans, shriveled shadows of the former DeVille, Electra and 98. Sales of the C-body sedans dropped considerably, and Lincoln’s proud RWD Town Car quickly surpassed the DeVille. But that was nothing compared the the E-body nightmare in the making.
All three of GM’s former cash cows suddenly developed cold cow syndrome, with the Riviera’s udders drying up the most. In its first year, 1986, sales were down a stunning 70%. And the drop didn’t stop; by 1988, unit sales were a mere 8,500, an 87% reduction from 1985. I challenge all of you students to find a comparable or worse drop in sales in direct response to a restyle, not economic conditions. Keep in mind that these years were during an economic growth cycle.
(I forgot to mention the Rivier’a new all-electronic IP display – how many are still working?)
The Eldorado gave the Riviera a good run for the money in the first year sales drop, with a 69% reduction. But after another small drop in ’87, Eldo stabilized, for a while anyway. And Toronado came in third, with a mere 62% drop in ’86.
But all three models were mortally wounded by the mummified 1986 re-design, and the ludicrous efforts in subsequent restyles to add overhang to the front and rear of these automotive midgets became ever-more embarrassing. Bill Mitchell must have been mortified in his retirement.
Buick made a last-ditch attempt to revive the Riviera with the dramatic 1995 model. The G-platform was shared with Olds’ Aurora, but they were one-year mini-wonders, at best. After a brief wave of interest, their auto-pilots were programmed to terminal dive mode. The 1999 model managed just 1,956 units, before the breathing tube was finally pulled on the Riviera.
It wasn’t only the loss of sales of these once glorious coupes that was such a mortal blow. It was what these cars once represented: GM as a purveyor of excellent design, desirable image, decent build quality, and a stranglehold on the mid-upper premium market segment. All these were utterly destroyed. Olds is long gone, Buicks are driven once a day to the senior special at God’s Waiting Room Café, and Cadillac is trying to start from scratch. (Note: this was written two years ago)
We’ll see you again for GM’s Deadly Sin #2. Any questions or comments? Class dismissed.
Somehow after doing a decent job on the proportions of the sedan versions of the X-cars and J-cars, GM completely lost the plot and couldn’t build a single FWD sedan or coupe without an awkward looking roofline for somewhere around a decade. Starting with the A-cars, GM insisted on putting this terrible ‘formal’ roof on everything. It was a pretty good indication of the quality of thought that went into every aspect of the GM cars of the era. I can’t help but to assume the same things about every new car I see with today’s stupid, rear seat headroom depriving arched roof line.
Speaking of cars taken out of the game by bad product planning, how does the current VW Passat sell? The 1996-2005 Audi A4 based models were all over the place, but either nobody buys the ones they’ve made since or they’re invisible.
Regarding Passat my guess would be that now a grown-up Jetta does the job for those who need a sedan/wagon, and Passat does not offer much extra in comparison, while its price is firmly in small SUVs territory. So there is simply no market for it.
Oh, and quality ratings do their part too.
I suspect they’ll be the topic of a CC some day.
I recall checking one out at a dealership in the Bay Area around 2006. It was stickered at $43K. It was ugly and the gas mileage was atrocious. Even the salesman was unimpressed. He told me, “Well, I guess some people like them. At least it’s got a good sound system.”
Seeing those cars in profile, one begs to ask: What was really the difference between them? They seem to be basically the same car? Technically, they were on different platforms, but with that much visual commonality, there couldn’t have been much of a technical difference?
The Somerset is an N-Body, shared with the Oldsmobile Calais and the Pontiac Grand Am. The Riviera is an E-Body, shared with the Oldsmobile Toronado and the Cadillac Eldorado. But what was essentially shared? To me, it just looks like an altogether common parts bin between them.
Not to mention the other cars in the same segment. The only difference between the L-Body and the N-Body seems to be that the L was engineered by Chevrolet, while the N was engineered by Oldsmobile. Both were essentially successors to the Citation X-body cars. And then there’s the whole debacle of the GM10 project cum W-Body. What the hell was GM up to in those days? Considering all the cars was basically the same size?
The E-bodies were a much more substantial platform than the L or N bodies.They were a well isolated chassis meant for a bigger 2 door only car with near luxury features, but front wheel drive. The L & N-bodies were meant for a less expensive car as a 2 or 4 door, could be powered by four cylinder motors but had a V6 available. I was never a fan of the ‘formal’ roof line as it was called, I’ve thought for years it was some sort of weird overreaction to the slant back or fast back mid sized GM’s that were released in the late 1970′s.
The E bodies were meant to function as the halo cars of their respective divisions, and the L & N-bodies were styled closely to try and gain some of the prestige. The L & N-bodied cars did not have a good reputation unfortunately. However, the tactic of the styled-similarly cars backfired in a very large sense, as the styling was too similar and people (I think) tended to believe the E bodies were just large L & N body cars.
I drove an Olds Toronado of that era for a while and it was far nicer than any L & N- body you could find. It was lot nicer than the Toyotas I was selling back then, too. But, it had it’s build issues, with loose hardware & etc. I was highly disappointed, because it was a really nice sized car with good room and overall performance. But, one of my coworkers sold it, and I was on to the next one.
I guess the other big factor with these cars was that gasoline prices had stabilized by 1984 or so. They were trending down by the time this car was released, so the impetus to downsize had been lost by then. As soon as fuel prices stabilize or drop in the US, people go right back to the big cars. Being that this car was roughly the same size as the previous generation but looked smaller, it took another hit in prestige.
I too, would like to see a Trofeo. Particularly a late one, like of the ’90′s models…
A while back I read the transcript of an interview with Irv Rybicki, probably the guy most in charge of GM styling when all these mid-eighties and ninties cars were designed.
Irv comes across as an absolute prince of a guy, an energetic, interested man in the best sense.
But he also comes across as what I have always called a “company man,” someone who always did as he was told, despite what his instincts or common sense might tell him.
GM wanted a pushover, and man did they ever get one in Irv.
I really believe there is more indication of the causes of GM’s downfall in this one interview than maybe any other single spot. Yes, GM’s failure was a long time coming before Irv took “control,” but he yessirred them into oblivion.
Here’s the interview:
http://deansgarage.com/2010/reminiscences-of-irvin-w-rybicki/
Thanks for the link. I’ve read that interview, and your impressions are the same as mine.
Reading interviews with Wayne Kady, who was also a GM Corporate Stylist during the 1980s and in charge of the Cadillac studio at the time that the 86s debuted is another interesting read. I did not get the same impression as you guys got with Rybicki. I talked with him quite extensively when I met him back in 2002 at Cadillac’s 100th anniversary. Alot of cars during the 1970s through the 1990s bear his hand but 1979-1985 Eldorado/Sevilles are classic designs.
One man’s “classic design” is another man’s Deadly Sin: http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1980-cadillac-seville-gms-deadly-sin-no-17-from-halo-to-pitchfork/
It’s the nature of car design, especially so with such a polarizing one as the gen2 Seville.
You probably won’t be too wild about my piece on Wayne Kady either: http://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/the-cars-of-gm-designer-wayne-kady-slantbacks-and-bustlebacks-from-beginning-to-end/
I did read the article on Kady. I am not fond of most of the 1980s GM designs, at least the ones that were actually designed in the 1980s and debuted towards the end. The 79-85 Eldorado is generally well regarded by most people. The 80-85 Seville is controversial, but I will say this, unlike the later models, it was distinctive for the era and everyone knew it was a Cadillac. Sales were about on par with the 76-79 (in relation to the rest of Cadillac sales) the Eldorado/Seville (and by extension the C bodies as well) dropped after their late 80s redesign. In my opinion that did more damage to the brand than the bustleback Seville the diesels the V864 or the HT4100. I say this based on the customer reactions I have seen throughout the time period and the effect.
I am certainly not a Kady apologist or anyone else for that matter but the early 1980s were certainly a challenging time from a design and engineering standpoint. Most of the bad designs choices came from upper management directives and not the stylists themselves. There is a book in the AACA library that interviewed the various major designers at General Motors during the 70′s and 80′s that talked extensively about the challenges faced by the OEs between CAFE insurance regulations and potential future energy concerns.
Hmmmmmmmm wonder how hard it would be to find a “pristine” N-body and drop a 3800 and matching trans in there? That would be a true SLEEPER.
Oh I know, better yet, a turbo ecotech! Power and economy!
Forget the N-body, go to http://www.v6z24.com and see what those guys are doing with the J-cars. Most of them are dropping Chevrolet 3400 V6s but I have seen a few 3.8s. The biggest issue with dropping the 3.8 is that mated to the 4 speed overdrive the 440T4 it wont bit without modification.
I’ve had two N bodies, and found them to be decent cars and rather pleasant on the interstate on long trips.
It certainly was a big mistake to release the new look on the N cars first. The thinking was to upgrade the image of the N’s by styling them like the E cars. It may have worked if the E’s came first. Instead, The E’s image was dragged down at the same time their prices skyrocketed, a terrible combination for the personal luxury segment. GM leadership thought that the leap in electronic content would offset the size and justify the price hike. Those E/K cars had (6) or more microprocessors communicating on a UART serial bus loop. The market disagreed.
Make no mistake, though, the E cars were very fine automobiles and much different than the N cars. The E’s were still very comfortable and pleasant to drive on trips. They had about the same front seat room as their predecessors, but lost all the rear seat knee room. It didn’t matter to a driver and one passenger.
I had always chosen previous generation Toronados as a company car, often saying it wasn’t exactly what I would pick, but it sure looked good parked in my driveway. That stopped after the ’85 model year.
I would love to see a write up on The Toronado & Trofeo of this generation. I had one for all of 2 months after wanting one for years. They have all but completely disappeared. I have a feeling Electric Problems and or those computers had something to do with it. I have said it before, but I considered it a Grand Am in a Tuxedo. I loved the look, but sure didn’t think it was worth twice as much. As rare as it was in 1999, occasionally I’d get someone looking at it as if it was a custom car. I would have loved a 1989 Riviera, I liked the formal roof line.
I’ve got them shot; we’ll put it in the hopper.
Log this as a second vote for a Trofeo. Always loved those.
Did this car have the crt touch screen in the dash board? If it did, any chance it still works?
Kind of ahead of its time though in that respect.
The ’86 Riviera introduced the touch screen CRT. In 1985, GM contracted drivers to evaluate initial production E/K cars on a drive loop near the Hamtramck plant. The goal was to uncover any problems and correct them before the cars were shipped to commerce. I had the opportunity to spend a day with them. I remember one of the “problems” uncovered by the activity. A young driver had the radio volume turned way up in a car that happened to have inoperative power windows- the kind of build quality problem the audit was intended to find. When he opened the door to respond to someone asking him a question, the CRT displayed the door ajar message, disabling the touch screen so he could not turn the radio down! It was memorable but not a typical customer problem- most would put the car in park before opening the door. The Toronado CRT was released as an option a year or two later. It had redundant bottons around the CRT to address that problem found in the Riviera. Toronado’s CRT had full color as well, but the option was not very popular, as I recall.
I always thought the 1986 Riviera was surprisingly Bland, particularly the tail end, It could not have been plainer, almost like they forgot to jazz it up some. Even the Somerset Regal’s Full
width taIL lamps were better. Perhaps the Touchscreen development and inclusion ate up much of the allocated budget. I did always want one, if only for that reason. I seem to remember on the 1989 Riviera I test drove, when you started the car, It graphically gave you the Riviera Script in a signature… it’s rather silly, but I did love that. The seats on the one I test drove could be reversed if you preferred suede to leather. I thought that was rather neat too. I still like the idea of owning one of these cars someday.
Your comment about the bland styling reminded me of my aunt Susan, who drove a previous generation Riviera, probably an ’84 or ’85, back when that was still a REALLY nice car to a lot of people, in about 1987.
Susan is and was not a car person in any sense, but I recall her and my uncle arguing the merits of his similar-vintage Cutlass Ciera company car versus her Riviera after I said (as a kid of about 10 years old) how much I loved that Riviera. (The flat floor, that great big dashboard with fake wood all over the place, the smooth ride…I love those things.)
She said, rather sternly, that his Ciera “isn’t worth a dime” next to her Riviera, and she would have bought a new one, but “look what they did to it!” I still remember that exchange like it was yesterday.
Susan may not be a car person, but she knows what has clout and style and what doesn’t, and the ’86 had neither.
A very fugly bag of bolts easy to see why US cars have no export markets nobody would want to be seen it a shitbox like this. The designer must have had his eyes painted on.
I was a fan of these as a teenager when they were new, mostly because they were just interesting to me. I thought it was amazing how far they went to downsize, while still keeping a lot of the recognizable styling cues. My favorite was the Toronado, which actually had a front end and grille that was clearly an homage to the original ’66. I don’t really buy the often repeated argument about all the cars looking alike. You can really say that about any period, and even about other cars in the same period. If you take, say, 1986 BMW 320 and 635 coupes, and look at side view photos of examples in the same color, I think you’d see something very similar to the Somerset/Riviera comparison above. Of course they’re similar — they’re both coupes from the same marque, in the same year. But c’mon — the Riviera had much more sweeping lines and it WAS longer by 7.8 inches than the Somerset, and even more important, it was a lot wider (5 inches). I don’t see how these are remotely the same car. I understand that the car missed the mark and sales went way down in 1986, deservedly, but a lot of the comments here are overly simplistic. As a previous commenter noted, it probably would have worked out better if they had introduced the Riviera first and followed up with the Somerset.
“While the Riviera started out a reasonable sized 208″ length, it suffered the same obesity crisis along with all of GM’s cars. By 1974, the boat-tailed Riviera was up to 223″.”
208 is a big car, by way of comparison, the Mecedes S long version and the BMW 7 long version are 205. I think the only current cars in the 223 (Deuce & a Quarter) category are RR Phantom and the Maybach.
Reasonable for its time. The most popular sedan, the Chevrolet, was 210″ long. So that makes for a yardstick for that time.
I distinctly remember attending a car show in 1986 (Moscone Center – San Francisco) with my Dad and we made a comment to one of the Buick reps present that they should at least move the Riviera out of eyeshot from the Regal.
We did think the cathode ray display/info panel was cool. 3.8 Buick V-6′s – bulletproof; mid-late ’80′s GM electronics not so bulletproof.
Best of the later Rivs – the ’95 to ’99. Handsome car that performed quite well. Buddy had a black ’95 Supercharged coupe. Unfortunately, the GM too litle too late reprise.
If the ’86 was released in 1981, the car media would have lauded GM for bringing out such an efficient car for the day. The N bodies were meant to fully replace the RWD G body. Car and Driver was eager for GM’s upcoming downsized cars and wanted them to move quicker. Who knew gas would go back to near 70 cents by 1986?
One of the dire predictions of Gas Crisis 2 was that cars would be smaller and only interior styling would matter. This was it. But the TV dash was to far, and the switch gear was too chintzy feeling. Too bad the old E body didn’t stick around as the ‘classic’.