If 1976 was the death of the American convertible, 1982 was the resurrection, starting with Chrysler’s rather plucky move to sell a convertible version of its new luxo-K-car, the LeBaron. Chrysler made a lot of hay out of claiming it to be the first of its kind since the death of breed in 1976. The convertible Riviera came very late in the model year; deliveries planned for April were pushed back to July.
The Riviera was almost twice as expensive as the LeBaron, so it’s not surprising that its sales were significant lower, never exceeding the 1,750 of the 1983 model. In that same year, Chrysler moved some 10k LeBaron ragtops. But there’s no doubt that the long-nosed and gently curvaceous Riviear was a lot more attractive than the stubby little Chrysler.
This 1982 flyer for the new convertible and T Type indicates that the convertible will be “A Limited Edition – Only 500 Will Be Built”. According to my Standard Encyclopedia of American Cars, it actually 1,248. Initial enthusiasm and apparent demand exceed expectations, and Buick upped its plans for the year.
The Riviera convertible wasn’t actually built fully by Buick; those destined to become convertibles were built without a rear seat or headliner, and were painted in either White or Red Firemist paint with a Claret (dark red) or Maple (light brown) interior. These coupes were then shipped to American Sunroof Corporation (ASC) in Lansing, Michigan, where the extensive conversion took place. This involved cutting off the roof, strengthening the body, adding a smaller rear seat and fitting the white vinyl top and related electronics. The whole process took over 300 parts as well as ten hours of labor per car.
The convertible was priced at a zippy $23,944 ($65k adjusted) in 1982, or 56% higher than the coupe. This was a much higher premium than back in the day when convertibles rolled off the lines along with coupes and sedans. The result was that the number of buyers willing to plunk that amount down was significantly less than those that expressed initial enthusiasm. Thus Buick built 1.750 convertibles in 1983, and not all were sold that year. So production was screwed back to 400 for each of its last two years, 1984 and 1985.
In 1983, Buick’s Riviera was the pace car for the Indy 500, and of course it was specially trimmed and outfitted for the job.
Under the hood was a 410 hp twin-turbo 4.1 L (252 c.i.) V6, feeding the front wheels of course, through the revised version of the FWD drive train first seen on the 1966 Toronado. Both three and four-speed versions of the TH-325 automatic were used during this generation of the Riviera.
Technically, the 41. L V6 rated at 125 hp was standard, but apparently most (if not all) convertibles were built with the 307 c.i. Olds V8, rated at 140 hp. As thus, it was a cruiser, with no sporting ambitions.
The interior in this example seems to be still in fine nick. It’s pretty safe to assume that most of these convertibles lived relatively pampered lives.
This one has seen just enough sun to disintegrate the fragile bumper fillers. Or maybe they don’t even need sun in order to crumble away.
The Riviera convertible really needs the top down to show off its…occupants.
I remember these, but only because I knew a guy who had one of the white ones in probably the early or mid 90s. I didn’t remember Buick putting much effort into promoting these, but then I wasn’t really paying much attention to Buick in those years, either.
As I recall the Chryslers started off as ASC built/finished cars but that production was brought in-house after the first year or so. I wonder what might have happened with these if Buick had done the same and kept the price premium down to maybe 10 or 15 percent over a regular Riv. It was a really nice looking car (in the universe of convertibles of the early 80s). But then I suppose Buick was looking at the car’s limited shelf life with the new 86 E body coming down the pike.
These were fairly popular in my Pittsburgh suburb when I was in high school. We had a strong Buick dealer in the South Hills, and Pittsburgh was still an American car stronghold, due to steel industry, which was collapsing nonetheless.
I always liked these Rivs. They were best looking of the luxury fwd coupes in my opinion, and the flowing quarter took to the chop much better than the Eldorado.
I wonder if the reason they didn’t bring convertible production in house was realization the next generation Riv was on the horizon – something clearly not in Lido’s mind.
Hi Robert,
I have the ‘83 white Buick Riviera, and it came from Pittsburgh area. My dad, born 1927, was a Buick man his whole life. I inherited his white Riviera only a year ago when he passed.
Mine is in very good condition, & I’m thrilled to get it on the road. Here in Santa Fe, where I live, there are many car enthusiasts. And at our famous Plaza lots & lots of Antique Car Shows throughout the warm months.
Another reason for the second-year sales drop was probably that Cadillac got in on this with an Eldorado convertible done using the same parts on ASC’s same line. Because the premium for a ragtop was so steep, anybody who could afford one probably could stretch to a Caddy.
Oldsmobile did not join in with a Toronado version, nor a J-body Firenza ragtop, leaving them the only division without a “factory” convertible in the ’80s. If they’d known in 1981 that they’d still be building them until 1987 a G-body Cutlass one would’ve sold well.
The Eldo led to an interesting lawsuit, people who had bought the ’76 “Last Convertibles” sued, and lost.
I almost bought one of these two years ago. I wish I had as it was only $3800 and in really good condition. But it was so mind-numbingly slow and underpowered I couldn’t do it. It sure was pretty though.
I guess it didn’t have that 410hp Twin Turbo, heh?
The engine must’ve really been a handful!
Not necessarily. We attained higher horsepower levels with our “86/”87 turbo Buicks with simple bolt-ons and just one turbo. Many of us drove them like we had stolen the things for many thousands of miles (and quarter-miles 😉 ). Okay, more than a few bolt-ons before we were finished – because who is really ever satisfied turning 11s when you could be going “just a little bit faster,” lol. And, oh, look, the guy on the GN/T-Type mailing list is selling a wicked twin-turbo setup and there’s a tax refund on the horizon… Nothing like getting booted off the track at National Trails for going too fast without a rollcage in a completely streetable 3,500+ pound “this ain’t your father’s Buick” that had a full interior, air conditioning, the aerodynamic qualities of a brick… and that you drove hours to the track instead of hauled in on a trailer. Like Archie and Edith used to sing, those were the days. I vaguely remember reading about some guy (named Chris?) whose Grand National – far, far from stock (I think he had a twin-turbo 274ci stage II setup) – produced a “this vehicle exceeded the limits of the dynamometer” slip on a 1,200-horsepower capacity dyno! And this was all occurring in the ’90s. Probably still is, if anyone can find the parts, IDK. The Internet being what it is, I’m sure a search for “Hot and Spicy Turbo Regal Recipe” would get someone started down the path to the dark side, although things got even better (and faster) within a few years, as people learned more, and shared their knowledge. Great group of people, lots of fun, lots of laughs. At one point, someone had an ’87 – Buick was offering the turbo drivetrain with any interior / option package Regal that model year – that was “suitably enhanced.” It even had a transmission brake, deactivated by moving the shifter out of first gear. But his was… the Limited option package, with the pillow seats? I don’t remember for sure, but I do remember it had a column-mounted shifter. So he’s on the line, with the tranny brake on, builds boost… and went full-tilt bozo, BACKWARDS, heh. Turned out, he got excited and knocked the lever all the way into Reverse. No worries. They weren’t fragile, those Buicks. . . .
The Olds 307 (which most of them had) was dog-slow on the coupe. I can’t imagine how much slower it was on the heavier convertible.
I like these, but Head & Eisenhardt did a few hundred Toronados and I like them just a little bit more.
Agreed. I was quite bummed when they decided not to go with a ‘factory’ Toronado convertible as I considered that car to be the best looking of that generation’s trio of big GM PLCs. But I guess that, unlike the Riviera’s curved flanks and sloping front and rear, the Toronado’s more angular styling was way too close to the Eldorado for a similarly-priced convertible version to sell.
As mentioned, seems like GM missed an opportunity by not offering a Cutlass convertible in the eighties. That would have filled the gap nicely without encroaching on Cadillac or Buick PLC convertible territory.
There are a surprising number of these for sale, or at least enough that I’ve noticed over the years. If you’re looking for a reasonably priced older convertible, these seem like a good choice; as Paul said, most of them have been well maintained.
I only skim read so I hope I’m not piling on, but these had a GREAT folding top mechanism.
Unlike some contemporaries during the convertible comeback era, the top operated smoothly, folding in and out without babying and assistance.
The quarter glasses carried some odd trademark, that I don’t recall now, but I remember wondering if replacements could be had.
I think ASC also did the 2nd generation Cavalier convertible conversion and the top was, again, the highest quality part of the car. It was as if you were driving a GM product with a Toyota-sourced roof.
I vividly remember loving the one-handed operation to lower/raise the top being the high point that made it oh, so convenient. Because of that, I used the top much more often than something quite a bit more complicated (like the one on the later Solstice which required getting out of the vehicle to operate). This also includes Ford which required (and still may) that the emergency brake be engaged on the Mustang before the top can be operated.
Frankly, if everyone engineered their convertibles to operate as simply and smoothly (and while the vehicle is slowly moving) as that Cavalier (and I’m guessing the Riviera), they’d sell a lot more of them. There were many a time I was able to raise the top quickly at a stoplight to avoid getting wet in a sudden summer downpour.
Oh yeah, now I recall the one-lever top, that was good too.
I have a “parking brake” Ford now. For years the brake handle had been up just one click. Up just enough to light the dash lamp and allow top operation. lol
In other words, thank you, but I can make my own decisions on when the top can be cycled. 🙂
Yep, the Ford sucked in comparison. In effect, it made it a two-handed operation with one raising the emergency brake handle just enough, and the other on the top release mechanism.
The whole thing seemed incredibly stupid. I mean, were there any convertible tops being damaged due to them being operated while the vehicle was in motion? Surely, if this had been an actual issue, the emergency brake lock-out would have been in use long ago.
From what I understand, German convertibles have a speed sensor that allows the top to be operated up to 5mph. Seems like a much better solution.
More like three hands, because if the top has been down for a bit the top’s header needs a good tug towards the windshield for the latches to catch.
It is incredibly stupid. Particularly considering the simple interlock bypass of raising the parking brake one click. I guess some need more hand-holding than others? Or the interlock satisfied some attorney?
During Convertible Week I was going to tell how years ago I had left a top unlatched. That was when I accidentally discovered a powered method for lowering manual tops. Wind powered that is. LoL
It actually worked well with correct speed and timing.
So maybe I’m the one behind the dumb interlock?
It’d better tied to latch position, but I don’t want to give any ideas. Lol
Looks nearly road ready, just in time for that covid-19 delayed Summer road trip .
Are the bumper fillers available aftermarket ? .
-Nate
Probably wouldn’t be too hard to whip one up with simple metal-bending tools. Last longer, too!
@Peter ;
That’s great for panel beaters with a sheet metal brake, the rest of us have to stumble on with a nice car looking decidedly crappy .
I hope this one gets saved and cherished .
-Nate
Not only did Chrysler have the LeBaron convertible, there was also the Dodge as well as ‘Chrysler’s TC by Maserati’. My TC here with 293 thousand miles showing on the odometer.
It is still a great car to drive convertible top up or down, though here in Arizona top up or hard roof on due to extreme heat and sun.
These convertibles look great with their tops down. Lots of GM cars would have looked nice without their ‘formal’ rooflines.
One of the last great GM cars (IMO) looks just as good as a convertible.
Better, I reckon.