(EXPANDED FROM 11/19/2021)
In a recent story, Hagerty described Wayne Kady as “the most well-known unknown designer in the history of General Motors” (Seaman, 2024). Among the designs that the article shed light on is the controversial 1974 Buick Riviera.
GM head designer William Mitchell had assigned Kady to “fix” the Riviera, which the division’s general manager thought was too controversial looking. However, funds for the facelift were limited. “The doors had to be kept, while the roof panel was shared with the Toronado and Eldorado,” Kady noted. “We didn’t have enough money to change a lot on that car except maybe the quarter-panels and the decklid and add high-level brake lamps” (Seaman, 2024).
Kady didn’t sound very happy with the results. “I managed to make it look more conventional, which satisfied Buick. It didn’t enhance the look and did not add sales. I always thought the boattail was better-looking” (Seaman, 2024).
I have added Kady’s perspective to this previously-posted story to shed more light on why the car ended up the way that it did. What prompted my original essay was a Curbside Classic critique of Kady’s designs. Paul Niedmeyer (2020) wrote in a reposted story that “during Kady’s brief first tenure at Buick, he was responsible for the unfortunate ‘de-tailing’ of the Riviera for 1974. The down swept line at the rear and semi-bustleback trunk were now Klassic Kady.”
This opened the door to broader comments about Kady’s design skills. A particularly harsh example is from dej (2012), who stated:
“So, on the whole, Kady was a hack who was great at drawing cars that didn’t have a chance in hell of being made. I would have created crappy drawings at half the price. The end result would have been the same. He must have had compromising photos of top management.”
Why denigrate a designer because styles change?
Commentator Rick Sand (2016) countered that the critique of Kady was “simplistic, one-dimensional thinking.” The debate has broader implications for American automotive history, so let’s take a closer look.
Sand (2016) lauded Niedermeyer’s story as being “well researched.” However, he criticized some commentators as being “on-line haters” who have offered “knee-jerk opinions” that display “no concept of the environment, business case and other influences of the time.”
Curiously, I did not see anyone prior to Sand’s comment heavily criticize Kady for the 1974 Riviera per se. Instead, a number of commentators defended the design. So perhaps Sand was obliquely responding to Niedermeyer.
Sand (2016) went on to suggest that the “Riviera looks much different today than it did in 1974 when it was new – a product of it’s (sic) times. The automobile business is a fashion business. We laugh at double breasted suits and exaggerated shoulder pads today – but do we denigrate the talent and character of an Yves St. Laurent who designed them way back when?”
Should styling sell cars or be a work of art?
Sand makes a number of useful points. For almost a century the auto industry has embraced planned obsolescence (a term coined by Brooks Stevens). The car shifted from being a utilitarian tool to a fashion object. Automakers now race each other to create new design fads. In such an environment, a stylistic approach that was once wildly popular could end up looking silly down the road.
Also see ‘1950 bucktoothed Buick: The definitive design statement from General Motors’
For example, the propeller-nosed 1950-51 Studebaker sold like hotcakes but has not withstood the test of time aesthetically. In contrast, the 1953 Loewy coupes are considered classics, but they did not sell all that well (indeed, I argue here that they helped kill Studebaker). So which was the “better” design?
Another consideration is what kind of constraints the design team had to work around. The 1963 Avanti’s styling was impressive partly because its designers did a masterful job of dressing up some exceptionally old components (go here for further discussion).
Was the 1974-76 Riviera a bad design?
Whoever was assigned to restyle the Riviera would have had a difficult time given budget limitations. In addition, the advent of 5-mph bumper rules necessitated a longer, blockier rear end. No more Mustang-like upturned tails.
Perhaps the biggest limiting factor of all was the zeitgeist of the times. The 1971-73 boat-tailed Riviera had been a brash attempt to resist the rise of the brougham look. Although the car certainly stood out in a crowd, sales were weak.
As a result, the Riviera was GM’s only large personal coupe that received a major mid-cycle redesign. Are we surprised that the 1974 models gained a radiator-style grille and a landau roof with opera windows? To me the only question was how certain design details would be executed.
Bustleback improves market share only slightly
Given all of these restrictions, the Riviera’s designers could have easily settled upon a generic look. Instead, they came up with a semi-bustleback. I give them credit for trying something new, but it did not rescue the Riviera’s sales.
Also see ‘1958-76 Thunderbird: The rise and fall of the Ford that shook up GM’
At least initially, nothing could. The first oil embargo decimated sales for almost all large cars. For 1974 Riviera output fell by almost 42 percent. That was less than the Oldsmobile Toronado (-49 percent) but more than the Ford Thunderbird (-33 percent).
A better gauge of the Riviera’s viability was its share of the premium-priced personal coupe market. It dropped slightly to 19 percent in 1974 and then hovered just under 21 percent for the next two years. Ironically, this was quite a bit lower than the boat-tailed Riviera’s first two years.
To be fair, one could argue that the Toronado did not do a whole lot better than the Riviera in 1974-76. Neither stacked up well against the Thunderbird, which averaged 54 percent of the premium-priced, personal-coupe market. That was a big change from 1971, when all three nameplates were fairly closely matched.
The bustleback did so badly that I wonder whether the boat-tailed Riviera might have sold almost as well in 1974-76 if its styling had been toned down a bit.
Riviera gets the head of a horse and the butt of a cow
I’m confused by what body parts Kady said were carried over for 1974. The front fenders and hood appear to be unchanged but I can’t tell if the doors were given modifications that allowed them to mesh with new rear-quarter panels.
If the above is correct, then the 1974-76 Riviera may have been doomed because the shark-nosed front did not easily lend itself to the brougham look.
Designers tried to paper over that problem by turning the beltline crease into Buick’s traditional sweepsphere. This resulted in the front fender’s character line disappearing at the car’s B-pillar. Horse head, meet cow butt.
To make matters worse, the B-pillar was given a forward slope. This arguably made the sail panel too big relative to the front-door window. It also made entry into the back seat a bit harder than previously.
And what of the bustleback? I wouldn’t describe it as ugly. Still, it didn’t look like a Riviera. Nor was the new look so superior that it was worth throwing away the car’s “brand equity.”
All in all, the 1974 Riviera lacked finesse as well as a sense of history. It had the whiff of confusion and a lack of confidence.
Previous Riviera designs hint at better possibilities
In light of the boat-tailed Riviera’s weak sales, I am surprised that GM did not return to the nameplate’s more successful design cues.
The most important step would have been to keep the Riviera’s Coke-bottle look — the upward arch of the side character line below the C-pillar. This would have been a better match with the boat-tail’s front fenders than the bustleback.
Designers could have also given the opera window a shape that at least vaguely evoked the original Riviera’s C-pillar. In addition, it would have made sense for the rear to once again have an outward-pointing V-shape.
The biggest challenge was arguably the rear window. Kady appears to suggest that the Riviera needed to use the Toronado/Eldorado’s roofline. If that included sharing a rear window, the Riviera’s individuality would have suffered.
However, if it was possible to give the Riviera’s rear window a bit more rake, that could have helped to distinguish it from the Toronado at least a wee bit.
The problem with adopting a boxy greenhouse was that it would have treated the 1971-73 Riviera as an outcast. Thus, a more interesting scenario would have been a rear window that hinted at the boat tail while still being a notchback.
One source of inspiration could have been the four-door sedans and hardtops on most of GM’s large cars from 1971-76. A rounded rear window could have flowed into a subtle boat-tailed shape on the Riviera’s deck.
Is this an unfair critique of the 1974-76 Riviera?
Let’s circle back to Sand’s feedback about the Curbside Classic post. Am I being dismissive of past styling fads? I don’t think so. I am holding GM to the standards that it practiced in the 1960s. The automaker’s most successful designs displayed an artful balance between new and traditional styling cues.
The 1974 Riviera lacked that balance. The bustleback was an interesting idea that might have worked on another GM car — and perhaps even a Buick. However, this was not a good way to put the Riviera back on track after its boat-tail detour.
Should we blame Kady for the 1974 Riviera? Given the complexities of GM’s power structure, I would be hesitant to do so. If we are going to point our finger at one person, it would be more logical to do so at Mitchell.
Also see ‘1971-78 Cadillac Eldorado: Collectible Automobile tells only part of the story’
Why? Michael Lamm and Dave Holls summed it up best by arguing that “full credit has to go to the person in overall charge because, theoretically at least, it’s his judgement that counts. If the design succeeds, he’s a hero. If it fails, he’s out of a job. He’s the person responsible” (1996, p. 207).
The 1971 Riviera was arguably Mitchell’s first big failure. The 1974 redesign represented his effort to fix it. That the bustleback didn’t work commercially or artistically underlined how GM — and Mitchell — were losing altitude.
NOTES:
This story was first posted on Sept. 4, 2020 and expanded on Nov. 19, 2021 and Feb. 2, 2024. Market share was calculated from base data from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Gunnell (2002) and Flammang and Kowalke (1999).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- dej; 2012. Commentator in “Design History: The Cars Of GM Designer Wayne Kady: Slantbacks And Bustlebacks From Beginning To End.” Curbside Classic. Originally posted 5:39 p.m., March 27.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Lamm, Michael and Dave Holls; 1996. A Century of Automotive Style: 100 Years of American Car Design. Lamm-Morada Publishing Co.
- Niedermeyer, Paul; 2020. “Design History: The Cars Of GM Designer Wayne Kady: Slantbacks And Bustlebacks From Beginning To End.” Curbside Classic. Reposted Aug. 31; original posting March 27, 2012.
- Sand, Rick; 2016. Commentator in “Design History: The Cars Of GM Designer Wayne Kady: Slantbacks And Bustlebacks From Beginning To End.” Curbside Classic. Originally posted 6:31 a.m., Oct. 10.
- Seaman, Kirk; 2024. “You May Not Know Wayne Kady, but You Know the Cadillacs He Drew.” Hagerty. Posted Jan. 29.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick Riviera (1963, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980); Chevrolet (1971); Studebaker (1950, 1953)
I have been a Riviera fan over the years, owning a couple of 66’s, a 67, and a ’71. I’ve also been a big Cadillac fan owning 50s. 60s. and 70’s models. The original three Riviera models were as bespoke as any production American car could be. The mechanical bits were shared with the other big Buicks, but the body, chassis, and most interior features were unique to the Riviera. The next gen, from 66 to ’70 had to share the platform of the E-car brethren. It wasn’t bad company to be in, but it did cut some of the uniqueness out of the Riv. Still it was sleek and dramatic. It was described in one Riviera history guide, as “A Motorama show car that you could park in your driveway.” The Boattail was dramatic to, maybe too dramatic. It shared a little too much with the LeSabre, but GM kind of overpowered your senses with the styling and it might have passed as something original. What was unfortunate during this evolution was the steady de-contenting that accompanied it. Bench seats became standard, it shared the regular Buick dashboard from 1973 on. This became worse from 1974 to 1978, where the styling was little different from a Le Sabre or Electra coupe. Where was the distinctiveness, the exclusivity,the uniqueness? The bustle back Riviera coupe displayed in the three vehicle comparison above, looked great as a regular Buick two door hardtop. During this period the Toronado became a bargain Eldorado, The T Bird became a bargain Mark IV. What kind of Bargain ws the Riviera?
I’m a particular fan of the boattail Riv. IMO, keeping it wouldn’t have been a mistake, & would have given Buick an edge in NASCAR aerodynamically, the same way the ’85 ‘bird (& GM bubblebacks) did. (Yeah, having the boattail last into the ’80s seems pretty far-fetched.)
The 1970 Riviera was a baroque dead-end after the great Mitchell 1963 thtough 1969 Rivieras. The 1968-1969 Toronados had ugly bumper-grills. Never cared much for the Cadillac Eldorado between 1971 and 1976: Too much mass and bulk.
The boat-tail Riviera was not a failure, in my opinion, but one of William Mitchell’s last hurrahs. Wayne Kady did the only thing he could, given the dictates of Buick between 1973 and 1974. The Buick Century/Regal managed to look cheaper than the Chevrolet Malibu while the stylists at Pontiac simply ran out of ideas for the intermediates and the full-size cars between 1971-1972 and 1976.
At G.M. between 1971 and 1976, only Oldsmobile fielded clear winners (the Toronado excepted). It was not until 1977 that G.M.’s overall styling (not build quality) improved to pre-1971 levels. The 1974-1976 Buick Riviera was distinctive and for the most part, a good car.
Speaking of the Regal, another option would have been to use its body and GP/MC’s 4 inch longer axle-dash. They all appear to have shared the same greenhouse.
I didn’t try to show it but the ’74 Riv’s rear design could have been adapted. (Old Car Brochures, AACA Forum).
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_08/283967199_1974BuickRiviera116W.B..jpg.1a446239cad14f8498491672eed2fe52.jpg
For 1978 the Riv would have needed to change to Regal’s downsized body, and needing a longer axle-dash to look elegant. But then we would have been denied the beautiful ’79 FWD car.
That link didn’t work. Let’s try with a different file name.
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_08/1116660821_1974BuickRivieraon116Wheelbase.jpg.8833e44df236c0a03fdefe059a7cf0b6.jpg
Some refinement including a rearward lean to the front, like the ’76 Century coupe.
Inside, it could have used Regal’s I/P and GS’s center console and adapted the rectangular metallic-looking center gauge cluster and other upgrades from the real ’74 Riv.
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_08/1751405230_1974BuickRivieraon116Wheelbasetallergrill5.jpg.5e293cea8bc215fec47305be99093e76.jpg
The ’71-’76 Riviera shared the cowl, windshield, doors and door glass of the B-body LeSabre. The forward angle of the ’74-up b-pillar was forced by the new roofline and door glass of the ’74 LeSabre, which changed from a full hardtop to a small roll down window behind the front door and a “colonnade” rear side glass. (along with the contemporary Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles).
Stumack, that’s an interesting point. What I wonder is why the Riviera couldn’t have just as easily used the same door glass as the Electra or the Toronado. And given that we’re talking about frameless windows, reshaping them doesn’t strike me as terribly expensive anyway.
I remember this post and comment thread over at CC. Some guys do get overheated, but Paul deletes the worst. I know, I’ve been deleted once! 🙂 I can’t remember what I said about this car back then, but I loved the boattail (in photos, at least) and was bitterly disappointed at the time when the ’74 came out. Disclaimer: I’m an Aussie, never seen a real one, not in the target market, and we don’t have big luxury coupes in my country. So if you think I somehow don’t understand, I’ll agree. I probably don’t. But I do like nice-looking cars, and at one stage wanted to be a designer (even got encouragement from Jack Telnack. But I digress…)
Now, looking back, I don’t feel the Kady redesign was too bad, given the constraints of the package (too big), the feel of the times, and the need to use the front of the old Riv.
On the positive side, Kady reinstituted the simple front to rear sweep line that was trad Buick, so the lower sheetmetal was good. To my eyes the bustleback rear (as used in this instance, and maybe this instance alone) fits reasonably well! It’s different, distinctly Riviera, you wouldn’t mistake it for any other car, and the angle of the tail panel goes nicely with that roofline sweep. The unfortunate thing is that it looks a bit like a pimple on a pumpkin, an add-on that looks like it doesn’t quite belong, so close, but somehow still a little awkward. Maybe a bit more studio time finessing the rear quarter sweep to better integrate the bustle? Maybe. But I could live with it. What I do have issues with is the taillights, which look garishly ornate – something simpler like the ’63 lights would have suited better. Riviera used to be about understated style, not chrome applique. Or vinyl toupees, for that matter. 🙂
That brings us to the roof. Score points for resisting the ultra formal boxy look, which came to be anonymous later. The roof angle is a nice compromise between that and the boattail’s sweep. Also, I feel it’s a nice nod to the original Riviera, which had a nice sweep to its roofline. Roof sides? You’ve mentioned the B-pillar angle and its effect on accessibility, but from a styling viewpoint it looks good the way it is. it ties in with the roofline and the tail panel angle and imparts a sense of forward motion to the design. A more vertical B-pillar would be a visual stop, a barb. Looking at your Toronado pic above, it’s a much more ‘stationary’ design, visually it just sits there. How often does the back seat on these get used anyway? 😉
It would’ve looked great as a full pillarless hardtop.
Peter, great comment. I have a somewhat different view but very much appreciate how thoroughly you’ve thought through your perspective. It’s too bad you didn’t go into car design.
Thanks Steve. So nice to hear from someone who can disagree amicably, something of a rarity these days. 🙂 My father discouraged my interest in cars, seeing it as fanaticism, and didn’t see a career in car design (or anything automotive) as a viable choice. I wasn’t strong enough to take a stand against him, but maintained a lifelong interest in the field.
It was the mid-Seventies. My dad and probably a 12-year old me were headed home and I saw it for the first time, directly in front of us: a 75-76 Riviera. Not sure which year but it was dark blue with a white padded top, and I liked what I saw. When we came to a light and those CHMSLs lit up, I was hooked!!! Only later when I saw the blockhead front did my eyes protest. They should have tapered the front inward to lighten it up and sinc it with the rear, and perhaps go with hidden headlamps. The only other issue was that the car was too wide for its height. But at the time, I thought it was a stand-out. More substantial and richer looking than a Grand Prix and Monte Carlo, more tidy than an Eldorado and Toronado.
I saw a boat-tail only once when growing up, just caught a glimpse of it from the rear when I was delivering newspapers. Thought it both dramatic and odd.
Another option for ’74 would have been to downsize, mating Regal’s body with GP/MC’s 4-inch longer axle-dash. Success would have come down to a spectacular front design and again, would need taper and mystery.
Reading all of the postings, I have several thoughts: First, quoting the “Car and Driver” article in March, 1964, (Pp. 75-79) “Who Killed Studebaker ?” (the infamous G.T.O. “comparison” issue), the author gave the primary reason as to why Studebaker sold a record number of cars in 1950-1951 as consumers were afraid of the resumption of car and truck production curtailments because of the Korean Police Action. The sales drop off in 1953-1954, despite the new Lowey styling was a myriad of quality issues of the ’53s like flexing frames and thinner sheetmetal !
Second, I do not believe that Wayne Kady was a “hack”. He had a job to do and very likely a small budget with which to “fix” the Riviera. The real problem was G.M.’s pursuit of behemoths that were too big and too heavy on the outside and too small on the inside. Who really wanted a Riviera after 1967, or for that matter, a Toronado ? A 1971 boattail Riviera on a 116-inch wheelbase would have made sense. This is the same problem that Ford had when they screwed up the Thunderbird in 1967 by turning it into a six-passenger luxo-barge.
The late, great Joe McConnell, play-by-play announcer (WCCO-AM, Minneapolis, WBBM-AM and WGN-AM, Chicago and WIBC-AM, Indianapolis), for the Twins, the Vikings, the Bears, the White Sox, the Pacers, DePaul, the Colts and Purdue, drove a new fully-optioned Riviera every year between 1974 and 1979. The 1977 and 1978 Rivieras were on the downsized Le Sabre platforms but were even less distinctive than his 1974-1976 cars. The 1977-1978 Rivieras seemed to be roomier than the earlier Buicks.
Once again, the real problem was G.M. and each of their divisions trying to cover too much potential sales territory with too many cars overlapping each other rather than targeting and “super-serving” a specific market segment.