(first posted 10/21/2016) Expressive Personal Luxury/Specialty Cars were a hot category in the early 1970s, with buyers seeking to flaunt their affluence and taste with a stylish ride. But what constituted style, and where would the market go? Yesterday Paul took a comprehensive look at the 1971 Buick Riviera, replete with the controversial boat-tail styling that carried over into the next model year with minimal changes. For 1972, Ford introduced an all-new Thunderbird that was very nearly a Lincoln Continental Mark IV. Both were glitzy, gargantuan American isolation chambers, and logical products for a direct comparison test. But in the December 1971 issue of Motor Trend, the editors threw a high-style 4-door from England into the mix as well, since the cars ostensibly competed in the same price class. The contrast shows very clearly where the market had been, and gave a glimpse as to where it would go.
Detroit was still infatuated with longer, lower, wider and heavier in the early 1970s. As a result, what had once been big, but still slightly nimble cars morphed into enormous barges, at least on the outside, while offering comically small interior and trunk space relative to the overall proportions. Idiot lights, plenty of plastic trim (often simulating other materials like wood), soft seats, lazy handling and supreme isolation rounded out the packages. Consider them primitive examples of the driverless car–everything was designed to “spare you” from the rigors of operating a motor vehicle.
In stark contrast, Jaguar served up a remarkably functional and engaging automobile. There was plenty of interior luxury, of the “Olde English” variety, but the effect was to engage the driver with a dynamic machine. Where the Jaguar fell short was on some of the creature comforts: while the Brits offered air conditioning, it wasn’t up to the standards of American car A/C units that could freeze Houston with the slide of a lever.
From the minute the pointed Riviera rump was first backed off the car hauler for public display, the styling was considered controversial. By 1972, the shock had sunk in and many buyers were scared off. Traditional, go-with-the-crowd buyers gravitated to more conservatively styled choices, like the Oldsmobile Toronado–which outsold the Riviera for the first time that year, as well as the new Big Bird from Ford. Suburban conformists showing off their luxury car credentials didn’t want to go too far out on a limb after all…
Though it seems unimaginable today, Buick and Ford both offered models that competed price-wise in a market segment with a Jaguar. The Riviera’s as-tested price was the least expensive of the trio, at $7,023 ($41,865 adjusted), while the pricey sunroof option ($518–$3,088 adjusted) bumped the ‘Bird up to $7,589 ($45,239). The Jaguar, as could be expected for an “exotic” import, was the priciest, at $8,490 ($50,610). But the cars were legitimately close enough in price that they would appeal to people in the same income bands (though with very different mindsets), and all three would be seen as “expensive” cars that would “impress” the neighbors. But what kind of impression did they make?
The Achilles Heel for Jaguar of course would turn out to be quality. Though tightly assembled and finished in first-rate materials, the XJ6 was notoriously finicky and unreliable in every day use–a temperamental beauty that couldn’t be trusted. The glitz-mobiles from Detroit, by contrast, were soft, floaty, and layered with the thinnest veneer of superficial luxury, but they ran like clockwork and could be simply repaired at the most remote gas station in America if a problem did arise.
Even Motor Trend pointed out the market opportunity for Detroit. The product attributes offered by the Jaguar (quality excepted) would prove to be the future of luxury vehicles for Americans in the coming decades. Plain to see, but so clearly ignored, as the baronial barges served up glorious profits so there wasn’t much incentive to do anything different.
Imagine, however, if Detroit had managed to build something more closely resembling a driver’s car for the upper echelons of the Specialty Car ranks. After all, by 1972 the Personal Luxury market was being flooded with baroquely-styled mid-size cars like the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and Pontiac Grand Prix, offering “class” for the masses. But at the top of the market, the cognoscenti were looking for something more subtly styled and engaging to drive. Bill Mitchell’s biggest miss was not crafting a product to appeal more directly to them. Mitchell would eventually (reluctantly) head in the right direction with the “Sheer Look” first generation Seville, but the market opportunity was apparent long before that “baby” Cadillac hit the roads. Even then, the Cadillac’s dynamics fell short of European rivals… And to think, both GM and Ford had some excellent European product platforms in their portfolio at the time that could have served as a basis for an XJ-sized, American-built road machine with more engaging driving characteristics.
The luxury sports sedan would of course prove victorious over time, even though Jaguar itself continues to struggle and the market has shifted once again, with SUVs being the new vehicle of choice for many luxury buyers. Big luxury coupes? Well, we all know how that party would end within the next 10-15 years.
I’m sorry, but this comparison test is bizarre. Were people really cross-shopping these two coupes with this Jag? I Doubt it. I see two blue collar status symbols of the era and one old money transportation device, for the liberalized wife, who chooses to drive for herself.
I may be exaggerating this situation, but this seems such a stretch, even for the times of the day. There were very different mentalities that drove sales within the buyers of these particular cars then.
But the comparison still stands true today: Smaller cars
are more performance and driver-oriented than bigger
ones.
Although I still believe larger cars can have sportier traits
(decently weighted, fast returning steering with lower
ratio, *some* road feel, and tighter suspension) built in both
if customers of larger rides demand it, and manufacturers
are willing to achieve it.
I for one do not believe that size and luxury and handling
are mutually exclusive traits. I recently drove a 2013
Hyundai Sonata Limited which, while a joy to throw around
local streets, possessed the highway characteristics of an
inebriated ice-skater, even after the steering dealer-set to
‘Sport’ mode and two alignments which I made sure weren’t
just in-spec, but where in the range those things belonged.
I’m sure any ’60s-’70s luxury barge fanatic would feel right at
home in this modernized smaller version!
That car is the reason I am presently in my 2015 Elantra,
which in comparison feels more than adequately secure
at any speed, any amount of twists and turns. Still, NO
EXCUSES for it’s larger sibling to handle the way I described,
and due to time and financial limits I gave up a sun-roof and
some other things I liked for said driving stability – A higher
trimmed Elantra not readily available at time of trade.
What did I just read, seriously… Context, friend.
Don’t like what I wrote? Don’t comment!
Someone else will find it informative or
interesting.
Elantra:
The folks here at Curbside Classic have no desire to get into situations where one feels the need to argue with one another; it’s counterproductive to how well the material presented is interpreted and appreciated.
I personally apologize that I offended you. That was my mistake.
I’m not sure how to read your commentary it seems in regards to the article presented. That’s on me, and not you. I do apologize again if I did not understand your context in reply.
No problem!
My ‘context’ was more of a technical nature than
the different ways the luxury market is targeted. The
truism that a relatively smaller vehicle will usually
handle better than a veritable zip-code on wheels,
LOL!
And in my reply I posed a challenge to vehicle
mfgs to build a large car with handling characteristics
and road feel of something much smaller – for
safety’s sake! A certain combination of alignment angles
and perhaps less high-speed steering assist could be
keys to this aim.
I appreciate those sentiments wholeheartedly 🙂
cji:
Hope you have realized that Don Imus and
I are probably the two most “contextually-
challenged bastards” you would ever hope
to come across.
In an article like the above, I tend to focus
on the technical aspects, like the handling,
and just about anything else gets the express
ride to the ground – out the window that is!
😉
True that a comparison test is normally about cars that are really competing with buyers, but I think that this article was about showing the contrasts with opposite approaches to the ‘Luxury’ concept. In that way it works better at bringing out the characteristics of each one than if you just chose another domestic Luxury barge for the third vehicle.
It is interesting to see how these automotive writers sometimes accurately presaged things to come. His comments about suspension tuning and how handling and comfort were no longer mutually exclusive (example: Jaguar) foreshadowed the rise of european and japanese products with tauter tuning and the move by domestics (gradually) toward more balanced suspension systems.
GM, Ford and Chrysler made a lot of money on large luxury and personal luxury cars during the 1970s, but at the same time they were out of touch with changing trends. This author spent a lot of time driving all types of cars of the era and he is saying that he sees the writing on the wall about this type of vehicle. Just 5 years later GM was downsizing and tightening up its full sizers while the Tbird was in its last really popular iteration as a luxo barge. 5 more years, 1982, and the ’83 aero Tbird was being rolled out and GM’s biggest new hit was the Citation. I would say that this comparison, though on the surface about Luxury cars, was really about the beginning of the end for this type of domestic car.
I look at this as being that even Motor Trend was starting to **hint** that Detroit better start doing something different to its cars Real Soon Now. Car and
Driver and Road & Track had been yelling that for at least the previous ten years.
Of course, Detroit decided to ignore the advice. Because, of course, they knew better.
But when even good old stodgy Motor Trend starts saying the same advice, maybe we’re long beyond the subtle hint stage?
I don’t think Jaguar ever had a meaningful piece of the old money market. Their products were splashy and relatively cheap throughout the ’50s, 60s, and ’70s. There were lots of people in my middle class neighborhood that made the reach for new Jaguars even before the impact of cheap credit and leasing. They were also people who rotated between chancer cars like new Jaguars and gaudy Detroit attempts like 2nd generation Sevilles and 3rd generation Corvettes. Eventually Alan Greenspan put them all in German cars, but they weren’t the same people that drove Fleetwoods and 300SELs 45 years ago.
The impression that I got about Jaguar owners back then was that they really had to have money. Given their lack of reliability, you would never hold down a job depending on a Jag to get you to it, so a second car was a must. A Jag seemed like a lifestyle as you would plan your life around weather or not it got you where you wanted to go.
My sentiments exactly.
My grandfather’s boss at a Northern Electric plant in Montreal (a British guy) was the proud owner of two Jags, He alternated driving them as they needed to be fixed at the dealership quite often! Apparently, he did could get the car that was just fixed and leave the other at the dealership so it could be fixed!
My grandpa who was in a lower level management position and he could still have afforded a nice car but didn’t like to spend on cars, he was usually driving Ford Customs and keeping them 5-6 years (which was considered a long time in the northeast then!). He relied on a single car for his family needs, commuting to his job and to weekend trips at his summer cottage. If he had bought two Jags, he probably wouldn’t have been able to afford a summer cottage!
Maybe you needed money to run a Jaguar successfully, but that didn’t stop people from buying ones they couldn’t afford. By the late ’70s, the XK-E(E-type to the rest of the world) had a bad reputation for being a car bought by people who couldn’t afford to maintain them. The XJ-6 and XJ-12 had reputations for being the cars most likely to have engines built by someone other than their manufacturers. Every automotive magazine in the country plus Popular Science and Popular Mechanics had monthly ads for Jagrolet conversions from competing companies.
Jaguar was the #1 selling luxury import during the 50s. And yes, it sold very well to old money. The big Mark sedans were very common in that crowd, as wells the smaller sedans and the sports cars.
The image of Jaguar changed by the 70s.
Yes, they were cross shopping these cars. Functionally, they’re similar. You’ll get where you’re going (if the Jag starts and doesn’t puke its coolant) pretty comfortably, and you can take three adults with you. None of them really are race cars. They all display some wealth/professional success.
Which car do you want to be seen in? Which car feels the best to drive?
The richest guy I know mos
The richest guy I know changes his personal car from sedan to SUV to sports car depending on fashion, mood, etc.
I don’t think it was quite as bizarre at the time. My grandmother had a Pontiac Grand Prix, then a Jaguar, then a 1975 Buick Riviera. I’d like to know the year of the Pontiac and the year and model of the Jaguar, but my mother is not particularly strong with the details and I only remember the Riviera.
This piece makes me think of the post on Net Vs Gross HP last week.
Both the 429 and 455 were rated at 360 HP gross in ’70, yet the de-smogged 455
still manages 250 while the 429 drops to 212. Either the 429 was way overrated to begin with, or lowered compression & smog hurt it much more than the others. This at a time when the 351 CJ went from 285 gross to 246 net.
A little OT FWIW, but the early sales lit for the T-Bird lists the 400-2V 335 series as standard, with the 429 optional. For years it was assumed that none were ever built, but thanks to the Marti Report, we now know that 2006 of these cars left the factory with the 400. With a 12 second 0-60 time for the 429, the reason for decision to make the switch is obvious.
At any rate, sign me up for the Bird. Yes I know it’s a wallowing pig. Yes I know it has nowhere near the collector status as ’66-down. Yes I know I’m weird.
I would be on this like white on rice if I still lived in NA. Cruel irony, I have the money and I still can’t have it.
The Riviera had a dual exhaust system. The Thunderbird I think had a single exhaust standard.
That’s 10 hp right there, put on dual with a crossover at your local muffler shop and the T-Bird might have gone up to 225
The 1971 351-4V was an M-code engine which was rated at 285 hp gross. The 1972 Q-code 351-CJ was a different engine, and it was rated at 266hp net in the Mustang and 248 hp net in the Torino/Montego (which didn’t make much sense since both were identical). That said, the 1971 351 M-code and the 351-CJ Q-code are quite a bit different. The M-code used high compression closed chamber heads, Q-code open chamber low compression heads, the Q-code had a more aggressive camshaft, they used different carbs, and the Q-code had a 4-bolt block vs the M-code 2-bolt. I’d argue that a 1972 Q-code will outperform a 1971 M-Code all else equal.
As for the 429 engines, there is quite a bit of a difference between the 1970 429 and the 1972 as well. There were big changes in heads, compression and other aspects of the engine. The 1970 engine if rated in net power was a considerably stronger engine. Just compare the performance of 1970 T-bird to a 1972. FWIW, a MT also tested a 1972 Ford LTD with a 400-2V that actually was quicker 0-60 than this 429 T-bird.
Was the 460 also revised for 1972? I know that it ran on regular fuel, and I’m pretty sure the ’71 required premium.
Yes, all Ford engines for 1972 were revised to run on low lead regular gas, including the Hi-Po 351-CJ. The 385 series engines took a big hit in power and performance losses, probably the worst hit engines in Ford’s line-up. Unlike GM who dropped the compression on their engines in 1971, Ford still had many high compression engines for 1971. These 385 engines were all over 10:1 compression in 1970-71, even the lo-po versions such as the 429-2V . By 1972 Ford dropped the engines to 8.5:1 So unlike many GM engines which had little change in real power from 1971 to 1972, their were many Ford engines that lost lots of real power.
The only Ford engines that didn’t suffer much were the lower compression engines, such as the 302-2V or 400-2V which were only at 9.0:1 in 1971 and both dropped to about 8.5:1 in 1972 and had almost no other changes.
“For years it was assumed that none were ever built, but thanks to the Marti Report, we now know that 2006 of these cars left the factory with the 400. ”
I forgot to comment on this earlier. Did you see or have copies of a 1972 Thunderbird 400 Marti Report? If so I loved to see one to confirm this if you be willing to share. FWIW, my Ford Master Parts catalog lists the Thunderbird as having the 400 as an engine option.
http://automotivemileposts.com/prod1972tbird.html
I’m just going by what I read here.
Thanks for the link Roger.
I can see why a Jaguar was thrown at the domestics. With a price only 20% higher there was no need to spend paragraphs and credibility waxing about fit and finish to explain a higher price, as with MB and BMW. The extra displacement of the double cam six was also an edge. It kept up with the 429 Tbird.
What I wish would have been more gone into is why the extra sophistication of independent rear suspension and 4 wheel disc brakes did not lead to any handling or braking advantage. The tuning seems to make the difference, with the Buick seeming to master despite the much higher weight. M/T said Jag was better but the numbers don’t bear it out.
No tests of course of sound level where the Tbird would have been shown in good light.
I think the magazine was trying to show that the imports were the future and the domestics the past. Using Jaguar distracted that by it’s quality issues. Good for M/T that that made it in the article.
Only the Jag required Premium grade, even though all cars here were ostensible luxury models for people who presumably could afford to slake the thirst of big blocks. I assume the reason was manufacturing logistics, not wanting to change the tune of engines shared with mainstream family cars; also, more power might’ve added noise.
Beginning in 1971, US automakers started tuning most engines to run on unleaded regular grade gasoline. This is pre knock sensor, so it required low mechanical compression.
John C.: They made it very clear that the Riviera and TBird had their suspensions tuned for glass-smooth asphalt. And that’s where the handling tests were made. But handling is more than skid pad and slalom tests on smooth pavement, and they also made it cear that in real world situations, where the pavement is not so smooth, that’s where the Jag’s suspension was decidedly superior.
Handling test numbers on cars like this are largely irrelevant.
MT only measured handling test was a skid pad grip/speed, which just gives an idea of cornering grip. A slalom test would give a more real world idea of handling, but they didn’t do that in this test. Popular Science was one of the few in this era that would do a slalom test. In any case, I’d expect if they did a slalom, the Jag would have been the most nimble and the T-Bird would have been the least.
I think we’re all in agreement that this is an odd trio of vehicles to compare. Wasn’t there a Chrysler luxury coupe? New Yorker coupe?
What stood out for me was the comment about American A/C systems of the seventies. I remember my mother’s cars from the seventies (always some big luxo-boat) and how cold the A/C was.
Maybe this subject would make an interesting article: How the age of A/C was taking over in tandem with the fall of the convertible. And how sunroofs/moonroofs/astroroofs also became more popular as people still wanted that “natural breeze” over their heads.
The age of R12 refrigerant and compressor the size of a garbage can. We had a hell of a summer here in South Korea (37C plus, 100% humidity) for 10 solid weeks, and even with a full charge, I had to keep the AC in my Cruze on “Recirc” to keep up,make that barely keep up. That wouldn’t have happened with my old ’76 Nova! (actually an Olds Omega).
Yeah, both Acuras I own(ed) have had weak ACs. I miss good AC, I don’t like the heat.
The amount of plastic now used in car interiors
definitely contributes to heat build up in a car
parked in sun all day or even driven on sunny
days.
As old school refrigerant was phased out,
weight-saving plastics inside and outside of
the car were adopted, so it’s hard comparison
to make.
and those modern plastics outgas for many many months.Those fumes are quite toxic and certainly detrimental to any persons health.I often wonder about cars made in Hiroshima considering the long life of radiation.Electro magnetic radiation from the increasingly complex lane change alert,distance and braking alerts etc.From a human cellular level we are increasingly being fried.
One of the things I noticed about my 2008 Toyota Yaris is that the near-complete absence of “soft touch” plastics (only on the steering wheel and the shift knob and boot, everything else is either cloth or hard plastic) coupled with the fact that nobody’s smoked in it ever, means there is no “gunk” on the insides of the windows.
If I remember correctly Mercedes Benz back in the 1980s were using hemp instead of plastics in the interior door trims,recyclable and biodegradable also.I guess you all know about the hemp industry in the USA and how it was almost wiped out by a certain chemical company because unlike hemp,cotton requires lots of chemicals.I like simple natural things,Give me a Jaeger gauge any day over a touch screen.Perhaps now that am a 60yo am becoming a COB,cranky old bastard.
As old school refrigerant was phased out,
weight-saving plastics inside and outside of
the car were adopted, so it’s hard comparison
to make.
It was phased out in the mid 90s, plastic was quite prolific by then. Plus many had their older cars converted to r134a, it is a common retrofit and a direct A-B comparison could be made, and it will make you think the charge is incorrect, even with a bigger condenser as part of the “kit”.
DuPont must’ve made out like a bandit with the switch to R134.
There was plenty of interior plastic by the ’70s, esp. in those rolling bordellos; perhaps the steeply-raked, large windshield area of modern cars should be considered.
It’s all about solar input. The interior materials of the car make no difference. Simple physics.
Not necessarily odd trio. I think it was a wakeup call
for those who think hey we have thismgreat big
country, let’s clog our roads with cars the size of
counties. Weeeee!
Euros and Asians have smaller countries, tighter
roads, and tend to be more space efficent and
nimbler steering. And many Americans actually
learned to like those attributes – including me.
Chrysler didn’t really have a comparable car in the early Seventies unless you loaded a Sebring or Charger and wished hard. A New Yorker would be a very staid alternative to these cars. The New Yorker is close to the length of the Thunderbird, but the Thunderbird is long hood, short deck.
A Chrysler 300 might have been comparable?
What about an Imperial?
By 1971, the Chrysler 300 was a trim level of the standard, full-size Chrysler. It was not comparable to a Riviera or a Thunderbird by this point. Nor was an Imperial, which was a conventional luxury car that competed with the Cadillac De Ville and Lincoln Continental.
I would say by 1969, not ’71; the 1968 300 was the last one to have sheetmetal and bumper differences from the rest of the full-size Chryslers. The 1969-71 300s had headlamp covers and different grilles, but no real effort was made to distinguish them otherwise.
So what happened in the USA when cars became less gargantuan? Were the sizes of parking spaces reduced? Re Jaguar XJ6 and 12 cars,there are few cars with such a fine tactile sense,handling,performance,comfort,ride,but the reliability issues were horrendous,even when new.Definitely cars to love and hate at the same time,addictive,for sure,heart and wallet breakers,definitely.
US parking spaces are a little shorter now. But 20 percent of the US vehicle market is full size pickups, and they’re the same length and width as big US cars from this period.
Parking is tighter in old city centers, but it’s pretty easy to park in suburban areas built after world war II.
I don’t know – in my experience the parking industry took advantage of narrowing cars in the early 80s and reduced the standard width of parking places in order to squeeze more cars into a smaller area. Cars (and trucks) have gotten a lot wider since then, but I am not seeing spaces going back to what was common in the 70s. Maybe those in architecture can help here.
I checked & the F-250 Regular Cab is longer than the ’78 Eldorado, and a little wider, too.
Neil:
So in reality the ’70s are back – albeit with slightly better
MPGs on those trucks and SUVs with technologies that
didn’t exist 40 years ago. 🙁
Between certain categories of vehicle getting bigger,
and daylight saving time, it seems we aren’t learning
how to conserve resources.
I’ll say; how often I see Americans idling their cars for minutes while parked for no evident reason. Wastrels! This is why I think much of the talk about “sustainability” is pure cant, at least in this country.
OTOH, I heard that in China, some folks coast downhill, engine off, in order to save fuel.
I think the mpgs for our current 4-door truck chariots are considerably better than these 1972 luxo-barges, but I agree we still have a long way to go to conserve resources….
A nominal 80 inches (minus mirrors) is the maximum width of vehicles without clearance lights in the US. The 78 Eldorado and the Super Duty (except DRW) are built to follow that rule.
Thanks. The Humvee is considerably wider than that.
Correct. Military vehicles aren’t subject to highway size laws, and the HMMVW wasn’t intended for civilian sale. Civilian H1s are subject to state and federal laws that variously restrict width to 96 or 102 inches except for oversize loads.
This is an interesting comparison test, in that both the Bird and the Riv seemed to be outside of the hottest part of the personal luxury market – The Mark IV and the Eldorado were where the action was.
I remember the 72 Thunderbird pretty vividly, and remember thinking (for the first time) that it really had nothing to recommend it, other than being priced for the guy who couldn’t afford the Mark IV. I did not feel that way about the two cars in 71, because the TBird had a sportier vibe that was a whole different concept from the Lincoln.
I have since warmed a bit to these Thunderbirds, trying to accept them on their own terms. It is easier since I have so little love for the 73+ versions of the Mark IV – the Thunderbird’s details are clunky too, but they come off better than the later Lincolns.
Before the oil price spike, this generation Bird sold near record Bird numbers after a rough patch in the late ’60s. While I’m not a fan of how much this Bird was edging on badge engineering, Lee probably got a few “atta-boys” from Hank on this one in ’72. I’m guessing the near badge engineering was a result of the investment in the ’67-’71 Birds not panning out terribly well.
But, you are quite right. The trend in the Premium Personal Luxury market was a need for the prestige of the Lincoln and Cadillac brands. GM did manage to make a good go of it with the ’79-’85 Riviera and Toronado, undoubtedly assisted by the Mark VI getting hung on its overhang.
The Premium Personal Luxury Market was a tough place to compete, there were probably an average of only 200,000 – 250,000 orders to be filled in a year, and the Eldorado and the Mark series did an excellent job of filling those spots in the ’68-’79 period.
Aside from the early 80s market going in the tank, the Mark VI looked like an LTD conversion by Choo Choo Customs.
Here’s where the MT evaluation fell apart: The prices of the cars. Loaded, the Riviera was $7,000 and the T-Bird $7,500. The Jag started at $8,100 (three grand above both the Riv and T-Bird base prices) and wound up as tested at $8,400.
That extra $900-$1,400 was a chunk in 1971…and for the most part, the Riv and the T-Bird sold to people who couldn’t quite swing an Eldorado or Mark. They were spending as much as they could afford to get into the Riv or T-Bird. The Jag was a rung too high price-wise, even if they could appreciate its type of luxury.
I don’t know that I agree that the typical Thunderbird / Riviera buyer could not buy a Lincoln or Cadillac.
While not an exact science, my years in real estate show that about a third of buyers stretch themselves, a third buy where their circumstances would predict, and a third buy below what they could afford.
That’s about 2/3 of the market that buys handily below what they could.
I’ve also spent years in banking and finance, and for the most part, I’d guess that 90% or more that could afford to pay cash for or finance a ’72 Thunderbird or Riviera probably could have taken home the Lincoln or Caddy. These were well qualified buyers by their very nature, hardly bottom feeders at the buy here, pay here lots.
The financial equation does not even take into account that some people might have actually preferred the Thunderbird or Riviera styling, may have been repeat buyers of the brand (or model), or may not have wanted the flash of the Lincoln or Cadillac name. Heck, maybe their uncle was a Ford or Buick dealer.
My guess is that under 10% of Thunderbird or Riviera sales were driven by a true inability to swing an Eldorado or Mark IV.
Okay, let’s settle on 10% unable. That would leave the rest making a conscious choice not to spend more. Which still puts the Jaguar in a price class that (especially in 1971) that T-Bird and Riviera customers were not especially interested in going up to.
In 1972, a Cadillac or Lincoln coupe was a much more ostentatious choice than a Thunderbird. Very quickly, of course, T-birds became unsubtle, acquiring the baroque front end (accompanying the 5-mph bumper for ’73); opera windows, which became standard equipment for ’74; and optional half-vinyl roof treatments in 1975 and ’76.
I won’t speculate as to whether Ford was leading or following the market with those choices. But I liked the ’72 when it came out; it was certainly preferable to the beak-nosed ’71. You could even get a ’72 or ’73 with no vinyl roof at all, although those must have been rare.
I guess, looking at these road tests now and having the limited knowledge I do, it’s easier for me to understand why the boattail Riviera failed in the marketplace.
Let’s start off with the comparison against the T-Bird. The T-Bird of this generation is, more or less what JP said, a poor man’s Mark IV, the guy who wants the big Lincoln but can’t put up the cash for it. (Though it does surprise that the base price for the T-Bird cost more than the base Riviera) As for the styling, well, I like the 72, but I also tend to forget it often. Say what you will about some of the more controversial or least liked Thunderbirds, but they always elicited an extreme response, even if that was sharp divisiveness or extreme disgust. The worst thing a Thunderbird could’ve been, was forgettable, and the 72-76 Thunderbird, at least compared to the others, is more or less forgettable. But, the Thunderbird was also familiar, the styling was what Americans were gravitating towards more and more, particularly as the decade wore on. Of course the irony is, you could easily argue the Riviera looks more subtle and put together than some of the designs that came out of the Detroit in the late 70s, but those designs seemed less alien.
So, you might think with it’s radical styling, it might appeal to a buyer like one that would buy an XJ6. But, here’s the thing, even that fails. Sure the Riviera will start almost every time, has more options, is cheaper, and even by the falling standards of the time, probably better built than the XJ6. But there’s one thing the XJ6 has that the Riviera didn’t. Foreign snob appeal. The reason why buyers were drawn to foreign cars is because they weren’t American, and the XJ6 is as far removed from being American as you can get. Of course, the reasons why people bought foreign cars is varied, but there was always that sense that you were more classy, more sophisticated, more upper crust and well off, than the guy working a blue collar job in his Monte Carlo or Coupe Deville. Sure, you probably have a first name basis with the mechanic who fixes up the engine because oil was leaking for the umpteenth time, and you had an A/C unit that was so ineffectual, it might’ve been better to try and stick a portable fan in your car to cool you off, but that didn’t matter. Because you were driving a car that was more out there and more upper echelon than a bog standard Cadillac or Lincoln or Buick or whatever.
I would even argue that the Riviera failed within it’s company’s line up. Before they became known for being rolling Elk’s lodges on wheels, Buicks were considered high end cars certainly, but they were conservative. They were cars for Lawyers, for Doctors, for people who want to display there wealth and financial well being, but consider a Cadillac a car driven by shallow Hollywood actors and people who have ties to the Sicilian Mafia. It was a luxury car sure, but it had a very old money image to it. The Riviera was just too radical, too out there, too, for lack of a better word, vulgar for the traditional clientele. Nobody who was going to buy an Electra 225 or a Skylark or a LeSabre would consider a car as flashy and over the top as a Riviera.
So, that to me gives me a better understanding of why the Riviera wasn’t a success. Too unfamiliar for the normal buyer, too detached from the brand’s virtues, and too ingrained in Americana and conformity for an outlier to consider. Hell, with what I described, if someone less generous and more unforgiving of the car than me were to examine it, you could almost say the Boattail Rivera was a deadly sin.
I agree with your assessment as to why this Riviera flopped, but I don’t know if I’d label it a Deadly Sin. It really didn’t hurt the Buick brand as a whole, or even the Riviera nameplate, which bounced back strongly with the 1979 model.
I wasn’t going to label it a deadly sin. I like it, it wasn’t a total kick in the gut for Buick, and the fact that the Riviera went until 1999 is pretty impressive. I was just stating that if someone much more jaded were to analyze what I had said, they might be inclined to call it a Deadly Sin.
My own grandfather, a lawyer in Philadelphia, bought new Buicks every 5-6 years. When it was time to trade in his silver ’66 Riviera, he took one look at the ’71 Riv and immediately bought a ’71 Electra 225 coupe instead. (Which he later traded for a ’77 Riviera, his last car.)
I’m challenged by the notion that the Boattail was a failure. It competed in a fickle segment that had the money to be fickle. It was always a dice roll on who would get the fashion more right for the season.
The almost universally revered first generation Riviera barely outsold the controversial Boattail. The Thunderbird trounced the Boattail. And, the first generation Riviera.
As much as anything, the Thunderbird name was very powerful with American buyers. The Riviera didn’t really get the best of the Thunderbird until 1980, a point in time when they were somewhat distant competitors thanks to standard equipment and base pricing differences.
“The Riviera didn’t really get the best of the Thunderbird until 1980, a point in time when they were somewhat distant competitors thanks to standard equipment and base pricing differences.”
Not to mention that Ford royally screwed things up when it moved the Thunderbird to the Fox platform, and the downsized Riviera (introduced in ’79) had curvaceous, almost graceful styling that was well received at the time.
Sales of the second generation Riviera (1966-1970) were in th 40,000 to 50,000 range until 1970 when they dropped below 40,000. But I think that the 1971 through 1976 (or even 78) were not what I would call a failure. Sales were weak.
I don’t recall seeing many Jaguars back in the 70’s. We all know they were an electrical nightmare, so the questionable reliability must have surely made it a bit difficult to pull the trigger on one back then. The Thunderbird always struck me as an almost Mark IV, and the Riviera was so radical to the point of being considered ugly. Now I feel differently but back then it was too far from the norm for me and probably many of the American buying public, hence the poor production numbers.
At first I thought this comparison was odd, but after thinking about it I truly think the automotive press was giving the American car makers a hint as to what the future would be like for automobiles. Even though the Jaguar was older technology it was more refined, trimmer and definitely a driver’s car.
Then, it dawned on me – wait a minute – my Mom actually went through the phase of large 2-door luxo-barges and ended up with a Jaguar! She had a 1966 Bonneville convertible, a 1972 Toronado, a 1979 Riviera and then a 1983 Jaguar XJ-6! She loved the way the Jag handled, and even though it gave her some electrical trouble over the years, it was one of her favorite cars. My Dad had a 1990 Coupe deVille that he loved. After he passed in 1993 my Mom ended up driving that car because of its insane reliability and parking the Jag in the garage. She ended up selling the Jaguar to my brother down in Florida, drove the Cadillac until 1998 and then bought a 1998 528i which she is still driving to this day.
Relatively few Jag dealers back in ’71. You’d see them in big East Coast and West Coast cities.
In 1971, BMC had a nationwide dealer network in the US. You could buy a new Jaguar anywhere you could buy an MG.
Interesting comparism we got no Thunderbirds or Rivieras here new, but XJ6 Jags were everywhere though expensive, more than double the US,
Poor motor trend they dont own wristwatches or comprehend technical details very well, the glaring error about what the stop solenoid on a carburettor does makes me doubt everything else in the article.
The Stop Solenoid is exactly for what they say it is, a measure to stop dieseling.
That is common knowledge to anyone who was around at the time.
Yes but they act on the fuel supply not the air intake,
On carburated American motors of the period, it was a solenoid that completely shut the throttle plate completely cutting off all air. This prevented the dieseling. On a manual transmission car you could keep it in gear, hold the brake, and let out the clutch to stall the motor. On an auto transmission car you had to endure the embarrassing knocking and clanking for around five or six seconds. Those of us who lived through this period can appreciate all the improvements to driveability and power in the coming years.
Yes, embarrassing knocking and clanking for five or six seconds…if you were lucky!
I had a Ford that would occasionally diesel for what seemed like 20 or 30 seconds, take a last gasp, and then finally die. Like you, I don’t miss that part of the “good old days.”
My dad had a 74 Mercury Comet V8 for several years which would diesel for 8 to 10 seconds, knock on mild acceleration, and hesitate on hard acceleration. Also, don’t forget the Interlock which failed repeatedly. At the same time, I had a used Toyota Corolla which was much slower, but ran with no issues.
My Dad was a WWII veteran and diehard Detroit car buyer. But based on the above, the next 3 cars he owned were Japanese brands. This was the time when Detroit alienated an entire generation.
That’s impressive 60-0 braking on the Riv!
And acceleration was better than one might have thought! The 455 was always great on torque!
Interesting that the lighter, 4 wheel disc braked Jag had by far the longest stopping distance.
I have read that the combination of the inboard rear brakes being out of the air stream and the exhaust pipes running close to the calipers caused them to get very hot.
The difference in stopping distances probably had a lot to do with tires. An E70-15 tire has a section width of about 195 mm, which is pretty skimpy for a 3,500-pound car. The Riv and the Thunderbird tires had a section width of 215 mm, over 10 percent greater. More rubber means more braking grip.
I had a neighbor growing up that had several T-Birds. He was a doctor . His wife drove Lincolns so maybe some others did like him, they already had the luxury car in the garage and decided they didn’t want 2 high end cars, not saying the Bird wasn’t high end, but they decided against 2 Lincolns or a Lincoln and a Cadillac.
45 years ago I would have said T-Bird, hands down. Now I admire the shape and interior of the Jag, but in recognizing it’s poor reliability, would go for the Riviera. The side view alone shows action and character.
Just give me the Electra 225 4 door hard top.
Agree!
The French have a nice saying for this type of comparison: il faut pas mélanger les serviettes et les torchons: don’t mix rags and towels. Amen.
Can I have a 455/TH 400 powered Jag with AC Delco electrics and GM air conditioning?
Yes, you can. See John’s Jaguars
Having owned all three of these cars (not at the same time); my opinion is: The Riviera GS is, by far, the best “Real World” enjoyable car of the three.
The Gran Sport package transformed the Riv into a highly competent road car. Quick geared power steering with the best “road feel” of the trio, GM’s highly efficient “One Dial” HVAC worked flawlessly, easily taming the intense Heat & Humidity that permeates New Orleans most of the year, The front disc/finned rear drum brakes gave the driver smooth, short stopping distances with no pulling or drama going on.
The 330 horsepower GS 455 Buick V8 engine impressed me with it’s smooth, potent, “always there” thrust. Under full throttle acceleration the back tires would often chirp on the first to second upshift. There was not an expressway on ramp or hill that could challenge this car’s thrust! It just kept on charging.
The GM/Buick calibrated turbohydramatic 400 automatic transmission gave quick but smooth, almost imperceptible up and down shifts. A small tip in of the gas gave an immediate downshift to second gear.
My only small complaint was the size of the trunk’s interior, limited by the overall body design. But, after all, this was not a car designed to carry a lot of luggage.