With its front-wheel drive, fully independent suspension, and optional turbocharged engine, the downsized 1979–1985 Buick Riviera was a huge step forward in sophistication, with improved road manners and crisp new styling that made this the most popular Riviera generation of all. In March 1979, Road & Track tried the new Riviera in turbocharged S Type form. Let’s take a look at what they had to say (with some contrasting comments from the earlier road test in the November 1978 Car and Driver).
The downsized 1979 GM E-body coupes got far more attention from car magazines than their predecessors had in years, with the new Riviera S Type drawing particular interest.
Because the Riviera had spent the two previous years as a version of the downsized Buick LeSabre, the 1979 Riv didn’t shed quite as much size or weight as the Eldorado or Toronado. Overall length shrank by about a foot, and the 1979 Riviera was 6.8 inches narrower than the ’78, but base curb weight fell only 30 lb, a reflection of the greater efficiency of the downsized B-body platform.
1979 Buick Riviera S Type / Mecum Auctions
The downsized Riviera was now 206.6 inches long on a 114-inch wheelbase, making it smaller than the original 1963 Riviera, which was 1.4 inches longer (on a 3-inch-longer wheelbase) and 6 inches wider. With a curb weight of 3,950 lb, the Road & Track test car was also over 200 lb lighter than the 1963 car.
All that was commendable, but, as David E. Davis Jr. noted in the Car and Driver road test of the 1979 Eldorado two months later, the biggest reason for the renewed buff book interest was spelled T-U-R-B-O: The Riviera offered the most powerful production iteration of the new turbocharged even-fire Buick V-6 introduced for 1978.
About three-fifths of 1979 Riviera S Types were turbocharged / Mecum Auctions
The Riviera S Type came standard with the turbocharged engine in 1979, but you could also order the turbo engine on a base Riviera (although only 2,067 customers did so). Not all S Types had the turbo: 5,900 buyers opted for the 350 cu. in. (5,737 cc) four-barrel Oldsmobile V-8 that was standard on the base Riviera, sacrificing 25 horsepower for a $110 credit and somewhat better throttle response. Still, in the worst depths of the Malaise Era, turbo performance was always worth a look.
Components of a 1978 Buick turbo V-6; the 1979 was similar, but had new manifolds, bigger ports and valves, revised valve timing, and a new carburetor / General Motors LLC
Not that the new Riviera was lacking high technology in other areas. Like the E-body Toronado and Eldorado, it was now front-wheel drive, using the new medium-duty TH325 version of the chain-driven Unitized Power Package transmission originally developed for the 1966 Toronado. For the first time, the Riviera had fully independent suspension, with semi-trailing arms in back and Cadillac-developed standard electronic level control. Like the previous B-body Riviera, the new Riv was also available with four-wheel vented disc brakes, although unlike the Eldorado, these were a $205 option on the 1979 Riviera rather than standard equipment.
Starting in January 1979, Riviera buyers could also order the electronic Trip Monitor system, which included digital instruments and a multi-function trip computer. The latter was a bit more rudimentary than the similar device offered on the Eldorado, which included a fuel flow meter and could thus give more accurate fuel consumption readings, but this was still very high-tech for 1979.
The optional Trip Monitor digital instrument package was a mid-year introduction for the 1979 Riviera / Old Car Manual Project Brochure Collection
In addition to its turbo engine and bucket seats, the Riviera S Type included a sportier “Rallye” suspension, with stiffer underpinning and bigger GR70-15 tires. In 1979, neither of its E-body siblings offered anything like that, although Cadillac and Oldsmobile would add similar optional suspension packages for 1980.
The 1979 Riviera S Type was only $276 more than a base Riviera / Mecum Auctions
The Road & Track editors had mixed feelings about the Riviera’s looks:
When the Riviera first arrived at the office we were all lukewarm to its styling, but then some staff members grew to like it more, while others went in the opposite direction. Both factions appreciated the lack of chrome and gingerbread, but though one group liked the formal sweeping sides, the other found it a bit too formal. This latter group figured that with all the fresh thinking that went into the engineering and layout of the E cars there could have been similar new ground broken with the styling. They argued against the blunt nose, the “long, long hood” and the very wide formal pillars which limit outward vision. But the others felt the formal styling is fine, serving as a natural extension of the direction GM started with the Seville and carried on with the specialty intermediate cars such as the Oldsmobile Cutlass and Chevrolet Monte Carlo—a certain sporty elegance. The argument continues to this day!
Custom wire wheel covers were often specified, at an extra cost of about $160, but this car cries out for suitable aluminum wheels / Mecum Auctions
To my eyes, the 1979 Riviera was probably the best application of this crisp, formal GM two-door look. GM clung to the formal-roof theme for longer than they should have — its application to the 1986 E-bodies was disastrous — and its impact was diluted through over-familiarity, but the Riviera pulled it off well. I can easily see why some Eldorado or Toronado customers would have chosen the Riviera over the Eldo or Toro instead just because they liked the way the Buick looked. It arguably looked better in profile, however, since the head-on view made this Riviera seem a bit too narrow for optimum aesthetic effect. (The Toronado’s shorter grille was helpful in this regard.)
The 1979 Buick Riviera was only 70.4 inches wide, 6.8 inches narrower than the ’78 Riviera / Mecum Auctions
R&T felt that the Riviera was also a bit too narrow to provide interior room in keeping with the still-sizeable exterior dimensions. However, this was still a personal luxury car, not a family sedan, and as a four-passenger coupe, the new Riv really left little to complain about in terms of interior space.
Both R&T and C/D praised the Riviera’s interior for its tasteful appointments and relative lack of what R&T termed “boudoir boldness.” I still find its color-keyed dash and trim rather gaudy, and while I happen to like the blue of the car in the color photos, some of the other Riviera color choices in 1979 would have had a far less felicitous effect. (Fun fact: Soviet military aircraft cockpits used to be painted a similar color, allegedly because of studies showing that it was soothing on long flights; it certainly had that effect on me.)
Bucket seats were standard on the S Type — base Rivieras had a split bench / Mecum Auctions
I know some people really love this sort of Brougham-itude, so I won’t belabor the point except to echo the R&T editors’ disgruntlement at the lack of proper instruments. If you ordered the Trip Monitor, it could be persuaded to display certain other engine information, like engine speed and coolant temperature, but I think it’s a shame Buick didn’t offer the Riviera with complete analog instrumentation, including a tachometer and a boost gauge rather than the unhelpful “POWER” and “TURBO” dashboard lights. GM cars of this era did sometimes offer decent gauge clusters, and it would have been nice to have one for the Riviera, at least as an option.
CB radio was optional on the 1979 Riviera / Mecum Auctions
The R&T test car had a CB radio, a hefty $524 option. I was much too young during the CB craze to get the appeal except that it had something to do with big trucks, and no one in my family who had the money for such things would have ever bothered. Therefore, I was interested some years ago to watch the 1977 Jonathan Demme film comedy Citizens Band (also known as Handle with Care), which makes CB culture seem like a prototype of the Internet, containing the same types of people you would find online not too many years later. In retrospect, I’m not sure I would have wanted that in my car, especially not for $524 (almost $2,400 in 2024 dollars), but it is fascinating.
Reasonably commodious, but probably best limited to two adults / Mecum Auctions
R&T complained that the downsized Riviera sacrificed a whopping 8 inches of rear hip room, making it strictly a four-seater except in a pinch. The editors found that wasteful, but the back seats of these 1979 E-body cars do seem unusually habitable as coupes go. FWD gave them flat cabin floors, independent rear suspension let the rear seat be shifted rearward for more legroom, and the formal roof offered passable headroom. Obviously, if you wanted stretch-out room in back, you’d probably buy an Electra instead, but a medium-length trip in the back seat of the Riviera would not seem to involve any serious human rights violations.
The spare tire was carried upright behind the rear seat, leaving most of the trunk volume usable / Raleigh Classic Car Auctions
The data panel of this road test listed the Riviera’s trunk volume as 19.1 cubic feet, a figure also repeated in the main text, but the brochure specs said 17.0 cu. ft., so we’ll go with that. Like the rear seat, it was adequate if not generous, although the rear liftover height was rather high.
Turbocharged four-barrel 231 cu. in. (3,791 cc) Buick V-6, with 185 net hp / Raleigh Classic Car Auctions
Various breathing improvements had boosted the output of all Buick’s 1979 V-6 turbo engines, but the Riviera had the additional benefit of less-restrictive exhaust plumbing, adding an extra 10 hp, for a net output of 185 hp and 280 lb-ft of torque. For an emissions-controlled 1979 engine, especially a 231 cu. in. (3,791 cc) V-6, that was pretty good, and it was 15 hp more than the Eldorado’s normally aspirated, fuel-injected Oldsmobile V-8. (The carbureted Olds V-8 offered on the Riviera and Toronado had 160 hp.)
Turbo Control Center was an electronic spark control system / Raleigh Classic Car Auctions
This little box on the fan shroud was how the carbureted turbo V-6 could survive boost pressure (of up to about 8 psi) while still getting by on regular unleaded gasoline. The box contained the control unit for an electronic spark control system, which used a magnetostrictive detonation sensor on the intake manifold to detect vibrations caused by detonation and then retarded spark timing until the detonation stopped.
Early Buick turbo V-6 engines relied on electronic spark control to prevent detonation / General Motors LLC
Modern engine control systems with knock sensors do much the same thing, although modern piezoelectric knock sensors are much more sensitive and respond more quickly than the magnetostrictive sensor. (Buick adopted a newer knock sensor design a few years later.) The problem with the early Buick Turbo Control Center — which both Car and Driver and Road & Track complained about — was that the system would still allow a fair amount of knock before intervening. Buick engineers assured C/D that this was normal and fine, but it was disconcerting, and didn’t add to the turbo engine’s refinement.
Spark advance curves for the 1978 Buick V-6 turbo / General Motors LLC
The rationale of the turbo V-6 was to shift buyers away from the thirstier V-8 to improve GM’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy numbers. While the Riviera S Type had an EPA combined rating of 19 mpg (compared to 18 mpg for the V-8 and 20 mpg for the normally aspirated V-6), Road & Track managed only 15 mpg. Buick had engineered the turbocharger package so that in steady-speed cruising, the turbocharger was idle below about 70 mph, thus improving EPA highway mpg numbers, but road testers found it hard to resist dipping into the boost, which increased fuel consumption precipitously. Also, unlike Cadillac, which saddled the gas-powered Eldorado with a yawning 2.19 axle ratio, the turbocharged Riviera S Type had a 2.93 axle, giving better acceleration at some cost in ultimate fuel economy.
This road test was a rare case of Road & Track returning significantly better numbers than Car and Driver. Road & Track managed 0 to 60 mph in 9.5 seconds and the standing quarter mile in 17.5 seconds at 81 mph, impressive for this period. Car and Driver need 10.9 seconds to reach 60 mph and 18.3 seconds for the quarter mile, with a much lower 74.4 mph trap speed, which in context makes me wonder if all was not well with the C/D test car’s engine. (Maybe all the detonation they heard during full-throttle runs wasn’t quite as normal and okay as the Buick engineers had insisted.)
A handsome profile, enhanced by the absence of vinyl roof addenda / Mecum Auctions
Both magazines found the S Type suspension somewhat disappointing. The GR70-15 tires were about 20 mm wider in section than the standard 205/75R-15 tires, but grip was not abundant: Road & Track managed a so-so 0.704 g on the skidpad, Car and Driver just 0.69 g, with hard cornering accompanied by some rather lurid body lean despite bigger anti-roll bars both front and rear. R&T grumbled:
As is traditional with GM, the ride and noise isolation of the Riviera are superb and should put to rest any fears traditional Buick owners may have that small must mean rough riding. However, there is more GM tradition that goes with that soft ride and that is a lack of crispness and definition in the Riviera’s handling. The old trademark is there in the bobbing nose of the car, floating at speed and not having the sort of jounce control we prefer. … Perhaps we were hoping that the move to all-independent suspension might lead to at least one version of this chassis that would take more advantage of the suspension’s potential.
Car and Driver was not persuaded that the independent rear suspension had much potential in this respect. C/D editor Don Sherman complained, “The combination of body roll and rear-suspension geometry forces the rear tires into camber angles that actually diminish their lateral adhesion.” He felt the semi-trailing arm rear suspension was adopted more for ride and packaging efficiency than handling, and the Cadillac SAE paper on the development of this suspension tends to bear that out.
The semi-trailing arm rear suspension was developed by Cadillac for the Eldorado, but was shared with the Riviera and Toronado, differing only in spring, damping, and bushing rates / General Motors LLC
To me, the biggest disappointment was not that the Rallye suspension didn’t turn the Riviera into a WS6 Pontiac Trans Am — people didn’t buy cars like the Riviera for that — but that it sounds like the firmer springs and shocks didn’t do much to quell the front-end float that afflicted these cars over rough or wavy surfaces. I’m not sure I’d mind the body lean in a car like this, but I would appreciate enough shock damping to keep me from needing a Dramamine on extended stretches of choppy pavement. With fully independent suspension and this much sprung weight, it seems like Buick could have struck a somewhat more assertive balance between compliance and composure in what was advertised as its “Rallye ride-and-handling suspension,” especially since buyers wanting maximum softness were amply served by the even-plusher base model.
Anyway, contemporary buyers don’t seem to have minded: Buick sold 52,181 Rivieras for 1979, 37,881 (72.6 percent) of those the base model, with even softer suspension and (usually) the normally aspirated V-8. This was a car chosen for style more than anything else, but if you liked the looks, the Riviera was a rewarding example of its type, and it was about $5,000 cheaper than an Eldorado — a winning formula in this era.
This version of the Riviera remained in production through 1985, selling 370,282 units. It wasn’t quite as popular as the Eldorado of the same generation, but it sold better than the Toronado, and much better than the bustleback Cadillac Seville. Sadly, it would be the last time the Riviera sold that well. Its 1986–1993 successor was a commercial misfire, and the worthier 1995–1999 iteration didn’t survive the ’90s downturn in personal luxury car sales.
1979 Buick Riviera S Type / Mecum Auctions
Strictly as a matter of style, I think the original 1963–1965 Riviera and its 1966–1967 successor are hard to beat, but the 1979–1985 car seems like a more practical proposition — more wieldy, not as thirsty, better brakes — and it still looks sharp. As coupes of any kind get rarer and rarer, the luster of cars like this only continues to grow, even if they were a little soft around the edges.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1963 Buick Riviera – Hitting All The Right Notes (by Jon Stephenson)
Curbside Classic: 1966 Buick Riviera – The Ultimate Bill Mitchell-Mobile? (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1971 Buick Riviera – Bill Mitchell’s Pointy Dead-End (by Paul N)
Cohort Sighting: 1975 Buick Riviera – The Hangover (by Perry Shoar)
Curbside Capsule: 1977-78 Buick Riviera – The Placeholder (by William Stopford)
Curbside Classic: 1977-78 Buick Riviera – A Short Life In Hard Times (by Jeff Nelson)
Curbside Find: 1980 Buick Riviera – Deep Blue Riviera By The Woods (by Rich Baron)
Curbside Classic: 1985 Buick Riviera – A Ray of Light in the Darkness (by Dave Skinner)
Vintage Car And Driver Review: 1986 Buick Riviera T-Type – What Is This Car Supposed To Be? (by Rich Baron)
I find myself aligned with the half of the magazine’s team that was not wowed by the styling on these cars. I have always found the attempt to merge a coke-bottle sort of flow with the sharp edges and creases to be something that doesn’t work that well. From the beginning I ranked styling with the Eldo first and the Riv third, with the Toro in the middle.
My father was swept up in CB mania in the 70’s. He had a unit installed in his 76 Mercury Monarch Ghia, mainly because he drove a lot in those days and he saw it as a great way to drive fast and avoid tickets. His CB handle was “The Green Hornet”, something that was a combination of the color of his car and a favorite radio show when he was a kid. When he ordered a new 78 Town Coupe he got one with the factory-installed CB. I cannot remember if he got one in his 80 Town Coupe or not – I have kind of memory-blocked that miserable heap.
I mostly agree with the styling hierarchy of GM’s downsized PLCs. It’s particularly noticable with the side profile image of the Riviera. Just look at how big that C-pillar is (it’s really emphasized sans vinyl top), and the upgright formal window simply doesn’t jibe with the curves. The more edgy Eldo and Toro come off better in that respect, although the Riviera convertible is an improvement.
To that end, I liked the Toronado best, and was always bummed that GM eschewed a downsized Toronado convertible (or a convertible in any year). I know it likely wouldn’t have sold well as it surely would have been as expensive as the similar Eldorado version, but without the cachet.
I think why the Toro and Eldo appealed to you was because the grills were more upright in keeping with the formal roof.
See, I think it pulls that off pretty well, and it’s what makes these more striking than the Eldorado or Toronado. My main stylistic criticism is that the grille is too talk for the dimensions and makes the nose look narrow. The Toronado avoids that with the “capped” grille, but that’s its only distinctive feature, and it otherwise just looks like an Eldorado with a less interesting taillight treatment.
Road & Track had a practice of framing their test numbers with those of ‘competitive models’ chosen to reinforce their editorial position. This car seems really quick compared to a Peugeot 604, which sold by the hundreds due to having very little to offer in this price category. Instead of the obvious Olds Rocket 350 powered Eldorado, the chosen domestic benchmark was the expensive, four-door lead-sled diesel Seville. In that context, this unusually quick for its kind turbo Riviera looks very quick, when there were other comparable options that didn’t involve draw-through carburetors that weren’t listed.
It was undoubtedly shaped in part by what they had actually tested recently. They had clearly driven the new Eldorado, but I don’t think they’d yet done a full road test of it, and the diesel was the last Seville they’d tested. That wretched engine was also offered in the Eldorado and Toronado, so it was of some relevance. (I don’t recall if Road & Track tested either the Eldo or Toronado with the diesel, but Motor Trend did a while later.)
With the 1979 E-Bodies, the Seville-style upright formal roof, was already approaching saturation in domestic cars. In reality, it was just starting, as each carmaker aimed to take advantage of the distinctness of the look. Though it was clear, the styling element was being over used.
Even as the Concord was nearing cancellation, AMC considered the look. This Concord appearing, almost like a four door Riviera.
It reminds me more of the post-aeroback Cutlass/Century. Probably for the best AMC didn’t waste ever more precious resources retailoring the same 1970 suit but it does pull it off the period look a lot better than the standard sedan greenhouses. The 1970 station wagon body aged remarkably well into the 80s, but the sedans not so much, so I can see why this was explored
I give GM a C+ for effort; maybe even a B- when I’m feeling generous. Unlike JPC, I liked the Riviera the best of the three, as the Eldo was trying too hard to channel aspects of the ’67, and the Toro looked like a watered-down Eldo.
Presumably the rather primitive blow-through carb turbo system worked better than Ford’s, but it does seem that GM might have been able to do this with FI, as they did soon enough.
In 1979 I could still see myself behind the wheel of a very few domestics, and this is one of them. It would have to have been in white, with some proper wheels (were alloys available?) and black wall tires. But the dash and the interior appointments would have been a bit hard to take. The BMW 6 Series coupe would of course have been vastly preferable, but much more expensive.
Back in the day, I had one uncle with this generation Riviera, and another uncle with this generation Eldorado. Sadly, no Toronado, though the one with the Riviera did own one or two previous generation Toros. I was eight in 1979 when these came out and loved them! I had and still continue to have Lee Iacocca taste in brougham cars. In this generation, I thought the Toro looked best, followed by the Riv and last would be the Eldorado. Styling is subjective, so to each his own, but I’d prefer any of these to the bland, generic trucks and SUVs being produced today.
”This car cries out for suitable aluminum wheels” . This one accomplished a NHRA National Record in AF/SA class with a corrected 13.61 ET with a stock 231 NON-intercooled SFI …obviously with suitable wheels & tires in the right place.
Not a fav , “version” for me. The dashboard’s tended to rattle after just a couple a years.
Full size “Buick, or “Old’s”, two door would a been a better deal.
That year “Pontiac”, full size, wasn’t a “fav” either.
From ’67-68 to ’78 it was surprising to me that GM Corporate allowed Buick to go in an entirely different direction than their other brands with their PLC. It seems the top brass decided that was enough of that.
For me I find the styling particularly interesting as the 79-85 Riviera seemed to be the biggest influence on the styling direction of the formal roof Mercury Cougars, especially in their purest form in 83-84 where the grille and taillights(with the emblems camouflaging the reverse lights) were practically outright copies of the Riviera.
The Cougars proportions are out of whack at certain angles due to the Fox platforms short wheelbase but it’s a remarkably close imitation in spite of it being a fairly light camouflage of the aero Tbird, which looks completely foreign compared to the Riv’s sharp edged siblings the Eldorado and Toronado. That just goes to show that bit of rake to the nose and it’s softer edges and slight curviness gave it a more modern vibe than the usual sheer look pretty much everything from the time had. It’s only real link to the sheer look is the upright formal roofline, but take that away it stands completely out of what GM was making from 1979-1985.
“Cougars”, then were “Zephyr’s/Fairmont’s”.
I think I was pretty clear in saying the formal roof Cougars, eg 1983+ were inspired by the Riviera
It’s surprising none of the three put an opera window in that huge sail panel. Maybe the downsized Thunderbird’s excess convinced them the opera window craze was over and done, or they wanted to save money installing the landau roof, a craze far from dead, unfortunately.
The June 1978 issue of Consumer Reports reported the test results conducted on what they classified as four specialty coupes. Two of the cars were the newly downsized A-body Chevy Monte Carlo and Buick Regal. They chose the Buick Regal in the Sport Coupe model to try out GM’s new turbocharged 231-cubic-inch V6 engine. For comparison purposes they bought a Monte Carlo with the 305V8. Horsepower ratings were 165 and 145 with the two cars weighing only 20 pounds apart at 3445 and 3425 respectively. Acceleration tests indicated that the Regal with its turbocharged V6 accelerated about as quickly as the Monte Carlo with its V8. Times for 0-60 mph were 13.4 and 13.2 seconds and speed at the end of the quarter mile 73mph and 74mph.
At constant speeds, the turbo V6 turned in about the same gasoline mileage as the V8, not better mileage. In more normal driving, which includes constant-speed highway driving and stop-and-go city driving, the Monte Carlo V8 achieved better mileage than the Regal’s turbocharged V6.
CR described Buick’s turboV6 performance as “unimpressive”.
For MY79 GM introduces the new downsized Riviera S-Type with the turboV6 and a 20 horsepower increase in output. Weighing 500 pounds more then CR’s Regal, it does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds and a speed of 81mph at the end of the quarter mile.
That’s an impressive improvement.