Never terribly common, the final generation of the Buick Riviera is getting notable for its increasing absence on the curbs and driveways of our land. This rough looking Riviera’s status as a daily driver appears to be hanging by a thread. It will be a sad day when Buick’s suave personal luxury cars are no longer commonly used daily drivers because I believe the 95-99 Riviera had something to say, as I will explain below before we look at Rivieras great and small.
I have a theory about music, but it could apply to other creative fields as well. I’m not claiming it’s an original idea, though I haven’t heard it anywhere else. Have you ever noticed how popular, long-lived artists or bands tend to create their best material early in their careers? Even if they are talented enough to be popular for decades and release dozens of albums, even good ones, they won’t be able to recreate the magic of their early creative peak. I’m specifically thinking of artists or bands that write their own material, i.e. singer/songwriters, so this only applies to some musical genres.
Many skills grow with age and experience over decades, but songwriting seems to be different. My theory is that gifted songwriters are not just gifted with skill but also with something to say, musically speaking. After they get that out and say what they have to say, the well is essentially dry. By something to say, I’m talking about music, not so much lyrics. Lyrics are integral to a song, but the idea relates to the musical expression, not the verbal message.
Young artists have to develop their songwriting skills. Once their skills reach the point of being able to effectively channel their musical message, they can reach their peak quality output. The trajectory differs widely. Some peak very early, some later. Some are at their peak a shorter time, some longer. What seems to be pretty universal is that it is very difficult and rare for singer/songwriters to reach a second peak of creativity and discover they have something else profound to say. It’s tough to replenish the well for a comeback.
Developing cars is as much art as it is science, at least in the area of styling. It was certainly artistry that created the original Riviera. The 63-65 Riviera is arguably the best styled car to ever come out of Detroit. That’s claiming a lot, I know, but it’s a heck of a design. It wasn’t luck that made it a hit, even if the hubcaps do look like they were lifted from a casino (look again at the above photo), and its value to Buick as a halo model went beyond the respectable sales numbers. The memory of the Riviera’s original glory kept the car in Buick’s lineup for another 30 uninterrupted years even when sales were not always great.
Judging from GM’s cars in the early/mid 60’s, Bill Mitchell and Co. had a lot to say in their designs, and said it with verve in the first several years after he took over from Harley Earl. The 63 Riviera may be his ultimate statement.
The Riviera’s second generation (66-70) was also inspired, though possibly not so much as the first. What of the third gen boattails of 71-73? Those certainly had a lot to say, many people just didn’t like the message.
It seems that Mitchell and the Buick stylists ran out of anything to say after the boattail. The down-sized 77-79 B-body Riviera is especially uninspired.
As a last hurrah for the Mitchell era (the design locked in during his last year), the 79 isn’t a bad statement and was something of a comeback. It strikes me as a nice application of established Riviera themes but not especially original. Boy did it ever speak to buyers, selling better than any other generation including the 63-65 and 66-70.
The down-down-sized 86 Riviera has nothing to say artistically and car buyers weren’t listening. It inadvertently had a lot to say about GM at the time, none of it good. The 86 Riviera was the inaugural subject in the GM’s Deadly Sins series here. It slinked away uncelebrated at the end of 1993 without a replacement.
GM had plans, though. Given the bad taste the last Riviera left, Buick thought it was worth another bite in hopes the apple would be sweeter this time. In many ways it was. GM developed a brand new platform as an early-release 1995 model, the G-body, with Oldsmobile doing a four door version and Buick a coupe. The Oldsmobile Aurora got rave reviews (for a 90’s GM car, at least) for its tastefully original styling and tight body structure, among other attributes. Though sporting an extra pair of doors, it was a suitable replacement for the Toronado, serving better as a divisional flagship than any Toronado since at least the 70’s.
The Buick looked nothing like the Oldsmobile as GM finally re-learned how to give platformmates true distinction. More on the styling later.
They were also mechanically well-differentiated as the Aurora got a smaller version of the Cadillac Northstar V8 (250hp) while Buick wisely stuck with their 3800 V6, available in standard (205hp) and supercharged (225hp) forms. Even supercharged, the Riviera wasn’t going to win a lot of drag races but it was adequate for personal luxury purposes. Like the Aurora, ride and handling were very competent. The new Riviera was a substantially sized car, too, back to approximately its “ideal” length within an inch of the 1963 model.
Interiors were not as happy a subject. The dash styling was suggestive of the original 1963 design…but…
1995’s monochromatic, plasticky interpretation left quite a bit to be desired compared to the luscious original. The modern version certainly was safer, lighter, and more comfortable, just lacking even a little of the old charm. If the center console in the 95 looks a bit grafted-in compared to the well-integrated 63, it’s because the new Riviera actually came standard with a bench seat. In an interior otherwise devoid of bright work, it somehow was bestowed metal-trimmed pedals, a rarity by the mid 90’s. You can just see them poking out under the dash in the 95 photo above.
“an ellipse on wheels”
Back to the styling. It was dramatic and a big departure from recent Rivs. The Riviera’s exterior design chief was William L. Porter, who said on its introduction, “I think the overall shape is both muscular and romantic, but the secret is that the design also has some mystery to it. Essentially the body is a big ellipse resting on wheels.” Hmm..muscular and romantic, with mystery. Sounds appealing, kind of like if Arnold Schwartzenegger and Meryl Streep made a movie together. The ellipse statement is definitely apt: the car is nothing if not rounded.
The lines have a nice flow and are not without elegance. The frameless glass and very thin b-pillars give it the look of a hardtop. It suffers from none of the 86 E-body’s stubby butt syndrome.
All that said, speaking personally as a longtime Riviera fan, the final generation is by far my least favorite version and that includes 74-76 and 86-88. This car should have pushed all my Buick-loving buttons. Yet, even in 1994 I didn’t like the look and in all the years since I’ve never been able to warm to it much. I don’t care for the extremely tapered nose, but I think the core of my problem is that I’m not a fan of the cab forward look, especially when applying it to luxury coupes. I’m just a long hood/short deck kind of guy. The 86 had its stubby butt, I theorize, to preserve the traditional long hood/short deck proportions even with its short hood. On the 95, the tail is very long, which is not in itself a bad thing but it amplifies the short hood. The proportions are all wrong for a Riviera.
The 95 Riviera makes me think of the 1984 Chevy Citation IV show car, which was a fully functional engineering study in minimizing drag and beauty. The main point of similarity is the short hood/long deck coupe look, with an elongated tail that tapers into a fairly small rear panel to give it that ideal aerodynamic “teardrop” shape.
The Riviera’s rear seems to use the same trick, though I’ve found no evidence that the designers had the Citation in mind. The Riviera had a drag coefficient of 0.33, which is about average for a modern car and a far cry from the Citation’s 0.265.
It was stated by Porter that the 1988 Lucerne show car was the immediate basis, though it is barely recognizable in the production car after applying it to the G-body and adding their ellipsoidal fuselage theme, enhanced “fault lines” running from the headlights to the end of the rear deck, modified roof line, and coke bottle waist.
This particular Riviera has been known to me for over 20 years. The owners of the house across the street from where I used to live in Tempe bought it when it was a relatively youthful late model car sometime around the turn of the century, I don’t remember exactly when. I went back to visit my old block this year and was surprised to see the neighbors still have the Riviera. They always parked it in the driveway in the same spot and judging by the condition, that habit has continued and it’s soaked up every minute of Arizona sunlight for the last 20 years (approximately the same period since they last trimmed their shrubs).
The deterioration of the finish is a sight to behold, a case study in patina development in the clear coat era. The Dark Cherry Metallic paint is about gone on the upper surface and the only thing still metallic about it is the bare steel showing through. Charmingly, the clear coat is coming off in a very Buick fashion. It follows an arc in an impersonation of the classic Sweepspear.
Like Johnny Cash with American Recordings (1994), Yes with 90125 (1983), Meatloaf (and Jim Steinman) with Bat Out Of Hell II (1993), or David Bowie with Let’s Dance (1983), the 1995 Riviera is the automotive equivalent of getting the band (without any original members, Blood, Sweat and Tears-style) back together and finding, against the odds, that there’s still a lot to say musically and success to be had. Also like many musicians, Buick found that comeback success can be short-lived. The new Riviera found 41k new homes in its extended first season, on par with the Riviera’s better years. Unfortunately, it seemed most everyone who wanted one bought in the first year, as sales quickly spiraled down to less than 2,000 for its 1999 finale.
Whether this was because more people didn’t like what the Riviera had to say or because the half-life of interest in American luxury coupes had decayed to just about zero is a question for discussion. Even though I’ve not been a fan of the last Riviera, I was still sorry it was cancelled and that the band is not likely to ever get back together again.
photographed in Tempe, Arizona June 20, 2022
related reading:
Curbside Classic: 1995-99 Buick Riviera – Out to Sea by William Stopford – Contains more detail and less musical theory.
Reader’s COAL/My Driving Impressions: 1990 Buick Riviera – A Mysterious Buick Fulfilling A Lifelong Dream by Brendan Saur – Not really relevant to the 95, but this is a very entertaining feel good story.
While the 1st generation of Riviera is a classic, I prefer the 2nd generation Riviera, followed by the late 70-early 80s version. The last Riviera? It’s okay, and if I were more of a Buick person it might be more interested. But as far as I am concerned, it’s biggest selling point is that it’s a 2 door and there weren’t many 30 (THIRTY…?) years ago, and A LOT fewer now.
It’s sad to see a car neglected like this. I bet that two-car garage is full of worthless junk and that’s the reason for this Buick sitting out in the elements.
In the years I lived there, I never saw the garage door open for any reason. I can only imagine what’s in there!
Much of what makes it look neglected is the poor quality of the clear coat (you noted) and it disintegrating. That is on the manufacturer more so than the owner. The owner could help some but when you only have one layer of clear, and not the best, this is what you get. At least with single stage you can actually restore some shine back to the paint through careful use of materials and a good buffer.
Lol. My neighbor across the street opened her garage doors the other day and it was wall to wall, top to bottom full of her treasures. She lives alone in a 4 bedroom. I can’t imagine….
Very interesting article, Jon…even if I find watching the trajectory of Riviera design pretty darn depressing. Such a promising start, and to wind up (in my opinion) at the design equivalent of that tortured baked car in your lead photo. Ugh.
I’ll be thinking about your analogy related to singer song writers for some time as I try to sort out what I think about the theory you put forward. Very interesting.
Some of what you say makes me think of a podcast that I’m a fan of. If you haven’t heard Slate’s Hit Parade with Chris Molanphy, you might like it. He starts with exploring songs and genres via their charting history, but ultimately goes on deep dives around how artists and bands come and go and come back again…sometimes decades apart. Most of his explorations are grounded in attempting to develop an understanding of why popular music is popular and how that changes and cycles over time. I find that kind of stuff fascinating.
https://slate.com/podcasts/hit-parade
Thanks, I’ll check that out. Feel free to leave a new comment in coming days when you decide about my theory.
My objection to the dashboard design of these is that the inset gauges and vents, typically dark-colored against the lighter plastic surround, make it look pock-marked, which is not a phrase one wants associated with a $30K+ car. Also, just looking at the pictures, I have a nauseating visceral sense of the way normal skin oils will stain the soft-touch materials. It bugged me at the time because I DID really like the exterior styling; it’s not a ’63–’65 Riv, but it wasn’t trying to be. The 3800 supercharged engine seemed like an appropriately painless powertrain choice as well.
Mostly, looking at this car now, it seems like a perfectly decent design that was just really out of step with the tastes of its era. It’s a big car for the ’90s, and it’s still got that indulgent cocoon vibe that did numbers in the ’70s, no matter how streamlined and swoopy it looks.
Long-time fan of yours, by the way.
It seems like Buick *was* trying to evoke the ’63-’65 Riviera with the dashboard, but without the dollars to do so effectively. You get the sense the designers had something much more ceremonial in mind, but were told the budget needed to be 20% lower, so they did what they could. It’s also possible–probable–that they were told not to step on Cadillac’s and the Eldorado’s toes.
I think it was a mistake to evoke the 63 dash. The exterior, to its credit, isn’t a heritage design at all, so why go that direction with the interior?
You’re not wrong. I wonder if it was almost meant to be a contrast to the high-tech Aurora.
I don’t feel like the dash design DOES try particularly hard to evoke the ’63, except in the way the dash curves inward toward the upper lip. The way the dash wraps around into the doors is its own thing (and something I recall the design team being very proud of in the press coverage when this car was launched). The vertical center stack, instrument panel, center console, and doors don’t look anything like the ’63.
I think Kyree hit the nail on the head: The ’95 interior was probably a knockout at the concept stage, but between approval and production, a big chunk of cost and enthusiasm was vacuumed out, a common problem with GM designs of this era. Even the glossy press photos couldn’t make the interior materials look high-quality. These were not inexpensive cars, but comparing it to the Z30 Lexus SC makes you wonder where all the money went. (Much as I love the exterior design, Z30 was not without aesthetic sin in the cabin — the handbrake looked like a last-minute afterthought, for instance, and the gigantic steering wheel hub/airbag cover was almost comical — but the materials were scads better and it felt like a quality piece.)
This car’s location as Tempe explains it all. (Extended) temps 114 degrees F in the summer will do that to a car. I used to visit ASAC on W. Warner Rd for work “back then” and came to enjoy my short stays there in the summer heat. Those darn rental cars always had black interiors though.
Those metal trimmed pedals were always nice, I always thought they lent a certain aura to a car.
Great photos.
You enjoyed your stays because they were short, or because you like stiffling heat?
Actually, when I was there in June, it wasnt bad. Swimming pools help immensely.
I did enjoy my stays there, and the heat that came with them, especially after enduring refrigerator like temps in all the meeting rooms I sat through. I would go and have my lunch outside in 100 degrees, while my colleagues thought I was crazy!
Same like in Israel where I grew up and yes, the heat/humidity (on the coast) is something you can enjoy for 2 weeks max…
So, since you mention it, the thing about the Riviera is that it spent much of its existence being a B-body, not just the ’77-’78 generation. The gen-2 Riviera ’66-’70 got to retain its full frame and longitude-RWD layout, even as its E-body platform mates (Toronado, Eldorado) utilized a semi-length frame and longitude-FWD. Buick wanted to continue using that layout, and actually wanted to adopt the A-body platform for the infamous ’71-’73 “boat-tail” design, but were told that not only could they not do that, they’d have to move to the larger B-body platform if they wanted to retain RWD and a full frame. So that’s what they did. Even though the boat-tail was called an E-body, it was really a B. Same for the ’74-’76. Only in ’77-’78 did they correctly refer to it as a B-body. It rejoined the E-body platform for the ’79-’85 generation, this time using the same longitude-FWD setup as the Eldorado, Toronado and newcomer Seville.
As for the ’95-’99, I’ve always been a fan. It is an awkward design from some angles, while from others, it evokes the likeness of a Jaguar or Aston Martin. One thing that’s definitively true is that it was hamstrung by cheap build construction and cheap interior materials, due to GM’s penny-pinching at the time. And even though it was a special car, it’s hard to care enough to preserve something when it starts looking like the above photo, and many of them did.
About the 1995 intro year, specifically: it was a bit of a one-year special. The Riviera skipped the 1994 model year altogether, and this last generation debuted very early in calendar year 1994 as a 1995. It carried over the Series 1 naturally aspirated and supercharged 3800 engines. It also had the older keyless entry system, older GM radio and climate controls, and no wood trim around the center stack. 1995 owners also, unfortunately, have to deal with GM’s OBD 1.5 standard. 1996 brought new electronics, new keyless entry, a slightly different center stack, and OBD 2. That said, since the 1995 came out so early, it represents a good portion of the gen. 8 Riviera’s total population, especially since that model year got all of the new-model sales momentum.
Also, for 1998 and 1999, the supercharged engine became standard. There was a Northstar prototype built (which crosses the auction block from time to time) but it never went anywhere, production-wise.
As far as I’m aware (and Wikipedia agrees with my recollection), the Series 1 NA 3800 was never used in the final Riviera, only the supercharged version (the Series 2 was used in non-supercharged Rivs from ’95). The Series 2 supercharged engine arrived in 1996 and bumped horsepower up by 15hp to 240hp and was quieter and smoother as well. 1996 was also the last year you could get the split-bench seats and cloth upholstery.
Correct! I misspoke. So there were three engines:
N/A 1995-1997: Series II “L36” 3800
Supercharged 1995: Series I “L67” 3800
Supercharged 1996-1997; All Models 1998-1999: Series II “L67” 3800.
Now, why the supercharged engine carried the same L67 codename across Series I and Series II iterations is beyond me. I’m sure it creates some confusion, detrimentally so, because the Series I and Series II are very different (whereas the Series III is close enough to the Series II).
You’re also right about the bench seats and column shifter lasting through 1996; they were not popular options, with most customers seeming to prefer the console and floor shifter.
The L codes for the engines are really option codes more than engine designations, so it would make sense that the supercharged engine would retain the same code. If there were substantially different versions that were offered concurrently, one of them would probably have gotten a different code.
Thanks for the info. Ive always wondered about the exact relationship of the 71-76 to the other E’s and the B’s. The 73-76 shares its dash with the other full sizers, so clearly related. But is the chassis identical to the B? Is the body understructure identical to the B, or does it share some with the E’s?
There’s some brief but useful commentary on the B-body commonality in this article in The Riview: https://rivowners.org/features/evolution/evpt71a.html
I admit being surprised by the Riviera’s revival in the mid 90s. It was nothing if not unique.
The same styling later applied to the LeSabre was far worse, and unfortunately, there were far more of them to look at. I much prefer the Riviera.
My aunt bought a new/nearly new early 2000s LeSabre, the build quality was appallingly bad but the 3800 was reliable.
John T: I’m curious why you say the build quality was bad? Not only did my family own numerous Buick’s (including this vintage LeSabre’s), but I was also selling them at that time. My personal experience was quite different from what you say and JD Power (and even to a degree Consumer Reports) would also show differently from what you say. I’m truly curious what you are meaning.
My immediate and extended family had plenty of these nineties and turn-of-the-century larger GM cars as well, new, and our experience was closer to John’s. Build quality in regard to panel gaps, trim fitment and rattles was a couple of steps below a comparable Japanese car, and they were pretty soggy cars to begin with, with no consideration given toward things like handling or lateral seat support.
They were perfectly reliable, serviceable cars, but they seemed to have been put together indifferently and the materials did not hold up. As the flagship product, the Riviera was probably the *high mark* of what GM was willing to do for quality control on a non-Cadillac and even it fell short.
I find these products endearing, still, if for no other reason than that they were the fabric of my childhood. But they had plenty of shortcomings.
Interesting. Since I sold Buick and Cadillac next to Honda, I had a front row seat to all this. I couldn’t disagree more. I will give you that, back in those days, Honda had slightly better “fit and finish” in some small details, but you had to be looking quite hard to see that. Overall longevity and lack of require maintenance made the Buick better. In fact, I sold about 4 Buick’s to every one Honda and I never had one GM vehicle get purchased back by the company. I had 2 Honda’s get purchased back by Honda Corp, but only after a long and huge battle between them and the owners.
Things like door panels becoming loose, the plastics felt brittle even from new, the pop-out cup holders were a joke, and the dash pad curled up so badly that the car had to be towed (you couldn’t see). The dash was replaced under warranty, a few years later, it started doing it again. She then kept a heavy book on the dash when the car was parked
The 200k, bought-new ’86 Olds Delta 88 it replaced still had a mint condition interior, so it’s not like she was in the habit of mistreating or trashing her cars. She took pride because she always kept them for a very long time (as that old Delta could attest). She was extremely disappointed in that Buick.
I worked at a GM dealer circa 2000-2001. I’m afraid I don’t share your memories of excellent build quality matching Hondas. I have distinct memories of brake shudder on a new Malibu with 8 miles on it, a brand new Buick Century with 26 miles on it blowing its engine. I remember having to hook a chain to brand new Chevy Blazers to pull them off the transport truck (!!!) and drag them to the service department where it took weeks to get them running and driving under their own power. Having owned a Lumina, Blazer and Sonoma crew cab from this era, their long-term quality was no better.
The GM interiors of that era would creak and groan if you so much as looked at them. The vehicles, even new, were a symphony of unhappily married parts crying out, yearning to be free. And often a good number of them escaped.
An excellent description!
Especially of the dash pad in her car. It definitely wanted a new life in a new city, as far away from that boo-ick as possible!
1985 Park Avenue (2). 1989 Park Avenue. 1991 Park Avenue. 1992 Park Avenue. 1992 LeSabre. 1993 Regal. 1994 Skylark. 1996 Century. 1997 Skylark. 1997 LeSabre. 1999 Century. 2001 LeSabre. 2003 Century.
There’s just a small list of the many Buick’s my family owned (including me). I didn’t even include my aunt’s because I can’t recall them all over her many years. And I didn’t go older than the two 1985’s. And I didn’t include any of my friends Buick’s. None. Not one of those cars listed gave issues nor had interior parks falling off or breaking. I will give you the dash pads curling up (this on mostly the cars that sat outside). GM went to a wrapped dash design in the mid 90’s and that was a problem for many.
Anyhow, I could give a list of issues the Honda’s had, but it’s clear that most on this site favor imports. So no matter what factual things I list in 12 years of personal experience, it won’t matter. I’ll stick to my American brands thank you.
My 96 Roadmaster is going strong still. Interior is a little squeaky, but solid and holding up pretty well for a 26 year old car in regular moderate use (and always garaged in its down time).
Just wanted to add this in. When it comes to vehicles, there were/are a lot more than just certain years of GM’s that had dash curling going on. Jaguar has had issues with their leather wrapped dashes pulling back and coming apart. Volvo was having that same issue just last year yet. I’ve seen many Volvo dashes pulled and replaced for this reason. My ex-wife’s 2003 Toyota Camry (same with her 2008 she has now) had issues around the passenger side dash airbag door. There are others, but I just wanted to point out a few.
This doesn’t excuse GM’s dash issues in the 90’s/2000’s, but they are not alone.
I did not have much experience with those (Park Avenus) but knew people who owned them here in Austria (yes, the 1st gens were officially imported into Europe) and they had the reputation of being capable of reaching huge mileages with no major issues. You can still find them for sale, usually with more than 160,000 miles on the clock and an asking price of more than €4500. Honda Legends of that age are extinct because repairing their engines – once they develop an issue – does not make any financial sense.
I had a 2000 medium blue metallic base model LeSabre that was loaded with everything from a sunroof to option package 2 with full trip computer, dual power seats, CD/cassette and even the 12 disk trunk changer. It also had the touring suspension upgrade with 3.05 axle ratio, leather wheel and uprated suspension. It was one of the best cars I have owned to date and quality control, panel gap and fit/finish were very good along with a flawless paint job. Never had a single issue with that car other than slight brake warpage when it reached about 60k. I think it was one of the better looking cars of that time especially when compared to the fish Taurus’s and some of the Asian offerings of the time.
My one gripe with that car was the front seats. They were rather firm for a Buick. The following year seemed to help a little with some added padding and they also corrected the lack of cup holders for back seat passengers by adding them to the back of the front seat partition. My buddy also had a 2000 burgundy LeSabre and also had very good luck with it up to around 120K miles after which he traded it in for a Bravada.
I’d also agree that the ’63 was a GM pinnacle, the only thing higher on the mid-century’s totem pole was Loewy’s ’53 Studebaker. I also prefer the 63’s exposed headlights, but I can’t explain why. I guess, as you say, the first presentation is the purest. Note the ’54 Stud added vertical bars to its nice clean horizontal bars, because? – well, we gotta’ do something – it’s a year newer. Then the ’55 REALLY screwed up the front end.
Yes, perhaps It’s why I keep going back to the early Beatles of Cavern Club days, vs. the very nice intricately produced, but less catchy stuff from later efforts. I’d say one of their very first tunes, “Please, Please Me” was their ’63 Riviera.
I really like nearly every model Riv with the least liked being the 1986. But even those cars had some things going for them. I started selling at a Buick (Cadillac, GMC and Honda) store back in 1988, so I actually sold some of those 86-88 designs. I much preferred the 1989 and the last generation better. But one thing I can say is that they were impressive cars to drive. Extremely comfortable unlike most anything from today where they are all trying to hard to be “European”. No thanks.
But the funny thing is when I scrolled down from the first article above this one (about the old Volvo 2 dr). In that article, my thought was how people can just store cars outside like that and I left a comment about it. Then I scroll down and see this! It literally made me laugh. However, it’s quite sad to see how so many people do this. I grew up in the mid-west where we got snow and cold, so most people used garages for the cars. In 2010 I moved to California and to this day I can’t believe how many people just park their cars outside and fill the garages with absolute junk. And for what? I agree 100% with Evil Ron, Jon and the others above.
The 1989 (for exterior)/1990 (for interior) was a vast improvement.
Kyree: I would agree totally. We (our sales department) kind of wondered why Buick did what they did for the ext on the 1989 but waited till ’90 for the interior. Some of my favorites are the 1990, 91 and 92. But I also liked the next generation as well.
For me, it’s the one year only 1970 Riviera!
I’ll never forget hearing the roar of that 455 come to life as we cruised Pacific Coast Highway in Socal back in the late 70’s and early 80’s.
The car just had presence. What a beast.
I miss that car.
You don’t hear that very often! The 70 was unique. I don’t care for the fender skirts, but I’ve seen at least one 70 GS with reduced fender skirts (pretty sure it was factory). That looked sweet!
You could get them with no skirts, too, but most seemed to have them.
I share the same agonizing feeling over these. I wanted to love them, and I loved the attempt to go really sleek (after the prior generation, that was simply awful). But the style just never came together for me – it was good at some angles and just off in others. This was the first car I noticed that aerodynamic trick of tucking in the rear sides to make for a rear panel significantly narrower than most of the car. I guess if it is so noticeable, they didn’t do it quite right.
I also remember what a big deal GM was making over “body tuning” on this and the Aurora. They were telling us that the only difference between GM bodies and Mercedes bodies was that Mercedes bodies were tuned to a specific frequency, so these would sound and feel just like Mercedes bodies. I am betting that wasn’t really true, because we never heard about it later.
I shot one of these early in my CC career, a black one with some clearcoat rash, parked at the curb outside of our City-County building. I could never develop the enthusiasm to write about it, so thanks for this.
If you hadn’t said it, I would’ve thought that Lucerne show car was a Lincoln concept previewing the Mark VIII. As for the Citation concept, it clearly previewed the GM EV1, which Jim Klein’s post from earlier this week reminded me so much of.
I never liked these last Rivieras. While I appreciate the stylists were trying to do something different, the wheelbase is just too long for a coupe. I can’t find any good angle on these, but that’s just me. The typical 90’s paint fade on this example is impressive!
When the Aurora/Riviera pair first came out I liked only the Olds. Clearly the designs were related but the proportions of the Olds seemed much more reasonable. The Buick had too much rear. The “C” pillars looked wrong in relation to the rear wheels. I did like all the curves on both cars. I have always preferred a coupe but only the four door came with a V-8. And the Buick had only a V-6. So I was really never interested in them as new cars. Anyway in the mid-’90s I was into F-150s.
But when the pair was a decade older and I wanted a coupe there were lots of very nice condition Rivieras available. I sought out exactly what I thought looked best – the pearlescent white with red interior. Found a very clean low mileage one at the Jeep dealership in Boulder and bought it as quickly as I could get down there.
Owned that Riviera for about three years and was perfectly satisfied with it. I very much liked the interior comfort and design and the car was good for long road trips. Mine was supercharged so the performance was just fine. And my objections to the somewhat awkward proportions had faded away.
That was the 3rd and last of three Rivieras I’ve owned and by far the best one. The others were a ’72 boat tail and an ’82 convertible.
Glad to hear it was a good car for you! Functionally, it seems they were a pretty solid design.
That Lucerne show car was a real winner, if only Buick had gone down that route!
I had been a Riv fan for years and had owned a ’71 and later a ’66 which was daily for many years. For years the Riv was the more tasteful alternative to the Eldo.
I refer to this last version as the “fish Riv” since that’s what it looks like from the front. The rear is too long, though from straight behind, the rear panel and lights are okay. The interior design was not too bad, but there was just too much color matched plastic. It was just too much of one color. Previous Rivs had plastic dashes of course, but they were broken up by different planes and contrasting colors and trim. Parts of the console should have had contrasting colors used. Maybe a strip of real wood? The interior ambiance was far below that of my Cadillac Seville STS.
I test drove one of these final models at a used car dealer. It came off as bland, which was just a total disappointment. If I recall correctly these were even a bit longer than the current Eldo. I really do miss all the Personal Luxury Coupes,
I never really could stomach these…and for a long time, I was never sure why. I loved the Aurora from the same time period (it stunned me in a way that no other car of the 1990s did)…yet the Buick just didn’t have the same eye appeal, despite the similar bones.
Comparing the two side by side, I finally figured it out. The Aurora had some subtle concave sculpting on the lower doors and upper fenders that reduced the visual girth, and played tricks with light and shadows so that the flanks of the car came alive. It also had a flat rear taillight panel, and a pointed nose. There was none of that on the Riviera. Its side sheetmetal was an unadorned convex mass, with nothing to break it up visually. Combined with the rounded nose and tail, it made the car look like an overinflated balloon. The overly long doors didn’t help proportions, either.
I feel the same way, the Aurora was a visual winner, the Riviera not so much. Good observations on the differences. Details aside, for me it came down to the fact that the Aurora was a well proportioned sedan, the Riv was an oddly proportioned coupe.
Excellent essay, writing, and metaphors throughout. The idea that recording artists exhibit many of the themes they’ve spent years developing on a debut album holds water, especially within the context of what’s known as the “sophomore slump” – where there has usually been less time for development and ideas.
To my taste, though, the final Riviera is toward the top of the list of my favorites. It took me a little while to warm to its cab-forward look, but I came to love it not only aesthetically, but also because by this point, the Riviera just didn’t “care” about looking like what was expected. It was daring, beautiful (to me), and a break from tradition – and swoopily dramatic, as I would expect from a Riviera.
The line about the Citation IV show car being a “break from beauty” made me laugh.
Thanks! The sophmore slump is definitely common. Hardly universal, though. There are lots of examples of great second albums. I’m not sure there are many who’s BEST album is the sophmore, though. The best first album is common (lilke you said, they have lots of good material worked out from years of pre-discovery writing) but plenty of late bloomers don’t really acheive greatness until at least a few albums in.
I know the last Riviera has its fans, thats why I tried to be respectful even if it’s not my cup of tea. Those controversial cars are the most interesting, anyway.
If a musician or group has legs, I’m of a mind that third albums are often where things really start coming together. Sophomore albums are awkward: If the debut was a big hit, there’s a lot of pressure to do things exactly the same, which often results in the second album feeling like the leftovers from the original; if the debut was not a big hit, the sophomore effort may just flail around in search of new direction. Two examples of artists with distinctly superior third albums: Bruce Springsteen (Born to Run) and Dire Straits (Making Movies).
The equivalent period in the automotive world, at least thematically, is when an automaker has had a couple of solid successes and is making money, but is not yet on top in their particular segment: It means there’s money to spend and a sense that they have more to gain than to lose by doing something interesting.
Best Second albums: I like cars first but almost as much as baseball and bicycles I like rock music.
So the best second albums I know are “In Color” / Cheap Trick and “Twilley Don’t Mind” / Dwight Twilley.
Those picks date but I don’t mind.
Good examples. Two good second albums I can think of off my head are “Second Helping” / Lynyrd Skynyrd (They could never come up with another Freebird, but apart from that song, I think the album is stronger and they never did anything better after that) and “Silver Side Up” / Nickleback (Their definitive album, and they got less original and more formulaic after). U2 War would be a good example of a third album growing and having things really come together.
Wow, this is deep! We could talk for hours, Jon!
As well as music, arguably the same observation could be applied to fiction authors (given that song = music + words). I’m both a writer and reader, and I find few things more dispiriting than seeing a shelf of books by the same author. Usually the earlier ones are great, and the later ones less notable. Not just because the author’s getting old and tired after thirty years at it, but it’s like their mental mine has worked out that mother lode of originality, and what they’re bringing out now seems dross, in comparison. But often I get the feeling it’s more a matter of publishing economics rather than literary worth; the name is a drawcard, so crank up them presses….
But sometimes I wonder, without that big name up front, would they have published that last novel if it came from a stranger? Is it really good enough?
It’s the same with music, you say? Hmm….
Does this thesis apply to every form of art, then? Discuss. No, maybe not here…..
Cars, right!
That first Riviera was certainly the antithesis of Harley Earl. Taut lines, near-flat surfaces masterfully blended with just enough curvature. The second generation, also a knockout, moving the style on with the times, yet also looking less formal. The boattail – I love it, but if only it hadn’t been so huge and, yes, bulbous. And it was decidedly informal at a time when American tastes seemed to be going in the opposite direction. The first two generations would not have looked out of place at an international motor show. I could go on…
This Riviera. To me it fits in the “Um, well…..” category. While I can see what William Porter was trying to do, to me it just doesn’t say Riviera. While it was modern for the time, to me it is just a bit too bulbous, too Harley Earl, it needs some more tension, more Bill Mitchell. There is too much curvature, too much trunk, not enough hood, not enough dash-to-axle. Flatten those flanks a little, trim down some of that visual flabbiness. The proportions just don’t say Riviera to me. While far superior to some of the placeholders that have carried the Riviera name, this one doesn’t quite do it for me. Not to mention that the times, they were a-changin’.
To return to your musical theme, here’s that Bob Dylan song, but taken in a medieval direction; perhaps more arresting in its unfamiliar treatment?
Thanks for the song, I wasn’t familiar with that version. I like the vocals, and the singer is very easy on the eyes.
The first gen Riv looks better in photos than real life to me. The track is too narrow, which makes the fenders seem hollow, and the shelf below the greenhouse is too wide, which dates it. But both were true of most early 60s cars.
So many 90s cars had bland, curved bodies for aerodynamics, at least the back half of the Riv stood out. Than Audi went to big, gaping grilles that were hideous, yet most makes followed them.
I actually agree. Despite the fantastic lines, the first gen seems to sit a bit awkwardly on its chassis from some angles. The second generation definitely seems more refined.
That 88 Lucerne show car – wow. As soon as I saw it I immediately thought “now THAT is a Buick”
Or it at least that was a Buick.
Definitely how to do a front wheel drive coupe. Ashame they couldn’t have done it more like that. Heck, with minimal modifications, that car would still look good if introduced today. Only in 2022, nobody would buy even the most beautiful American luxury coupe imaginable.
The 1986 to 88 generation was my least favorite as IMO they just went too far with the downsizing. I always liked the 1995-99 generation but the interior wasn’t their best effort. My favorite years were 1979-1985 especially if they were equipped with sport steering wheels and alloy wheels or were S/T types
I AM SEEKING A LEFT DOOR LOWER MOLDING FOR MY 1995 BUICK RIVIERA AND HOPING YOU HAVE 1 FOR SALE. THIS MOLDING GOES ON THE BOTTOMOF THE DOOR AND ABOVE THE ROCKER MOLDING.