David Burrell has written what may be the most detailed account of how William Mitchell vainly tried to shift the “boat-tail” 1971 Buick Riviera to a mid-sized platform. Burrell’s story in Retro Autos (2021) even has photographs of side-by-side comparisons of a rejected A-body-based proposal and the production model, which was placed on the full-sized B-body.
You will want to read his full article if you haven’t already (go here). My goal with this post is to add some additional layers to the discussion.
The A-body Riviera looks much better than the production model, but I still think it was a size too big. Dean’s Garage commentator Jason Houston (2024) hints at why by arguing that larger fastbacks such as the 1966-67 Dodge Charger and the 1965-67 AMC Marlin “didn’t sell.”
One could argue that the A-body Riviera had a better-balanced design because, unlike the Charger and Marlin, it wasn’t merely a fastback awkwardly attached to a mid-sized sedan’s front end. The boat-tail proposal had an exceptionally long wheelbase ahead of the A-pillar, and a relatively short wheelbase behind the B-pillar, which resulted in decent proportions. Even so, it looked too wide for what was essentially a four-place GT coupe with neo-classical design elements.
Why wasn’t the boat tail put on the F-body?
The boat-tail concept could have looked best on GM’s compact F-body, which was used by the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird. That platform was more appropriate because it was lower and a bit narrower than the A-body, and had the requisite long-hood, short-deck proportions.
The back seat of an F-bodied Riviera would have been as cramped as your typical 2+2, but Mitchell didn’t seem to care about that with the A-body proposal. Indeed, it strikes me as a stretch to say that platform was even used because the concept shown in photos did not share major components with production models such as the windshield.
Why did Mitchell think that top management would approve such a unique design when it apparently wasn’t willing to continue funding a stand-alone E-body, which is what the Riviera and its corporate siblings the Oldsmobile Toronado and Cadillac Eldorado had been using?
Switching to the F-body could have gotten Mitchell closer to what he was trying to achieve stylistically, but it still would have required some adaptation. For example, the concept car’s wrap-around windshield would have needed to be swapped out for the F-body’s more upright design.
Why did management insist on using the B-body?
The biggest lingering question I have from Burrell’s article is why did GM management order Mitchell to use the full-sized B-body. After all, with suitable modifications the boat tail could have achieved decent economies of scale if it had instead been based on the A-body.
Going that direction would have merely followed in the footsteps of Pontiac, which in 1969 moved its Grand Prix from the B- to the A-body. Sales soared — and perhaps just as importantly, John Z. DeLorean argued that the car’s profitability increased because it cost less to produce (Wright, 1979).
Also see ‘1971-73 Buick Riviera: The last stand against the broughamization of Detroit’
Burrell (2021) stated that the Riviera was required to “share the chassis, cowl, front pillars, windscreen, some panels and side glass with regular Buick hardtop coupes, such as the La Sabre.” That could have just as easily been done with the mid-sized Buick.
Timing may have been a problem — the A-body wasn’t slated for a redesign until 1973. However, the Riviera could have been given access to the new body a year in advance. That might have made sense because the Riviera received sheetmetal changes in 1970 that were kept for only one year. Extending the production run to two years would have been more typical for the nameplate.
A bold styling statement for the wrong market niche
The 1971 Riviera strikes me as one of the biggest mistakes of Mitchell’s tenure as head of GM design. Even so, I can sort-of understand why he apparently felt so passionate about the boat-tail concept. Mitchell reportedly wanted to push back against cars becoming too bland (Burrell, 2021).
The Riviera was more interesting than the cloyingly generic 1972 Ford Thunderbird, but the latter sold much better. That strikes me as predictable. Larger fastbacks did not tend to do very well. The Riviera’s potential market was further constricted by odd stylistic touches such as an overly pointed tail on 1971-72 models and a bulky-looking, vertical C-pillar. It just didn’t look right.
Also see ‘Did Wayne Kady screw up the 1974-76 Buick Riviera?’
The boat-tail Riviera may have been too radical for a full-sized personal coupe, but it plausibly could have carved out a decent niche as a compact, luxury-oriented GT coupe — which could have given a needed sales boost to the F-body. Either that or the boat-tail theme should have been ditched in favor of something more appropriate for a big Buick . . . and a Riviera.
Mitchell appears to have let GM’s successes of the 1960s go to his head. He allowed his personal stylistic predilections to cloud his judgment about what was commercially viable.
NOTES:
Hat tip to Dean’s Garage for reposting Burrell’s article (2024). Production figures and product specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Flory (2004, 2013) and Gunnell (2002).
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.
- Burrell, David; 2021. “Boat-tail Riviera: Bill Mitchell creates controversy – Design to Driveway photos.” Retro Autos. Posted Aug. 31.
- ——; 2024. “Mitchell’s A-Body Boattail Riviera.” Dean’s Garage. Posted June 14.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- ——; 2013. American Cars, 1973-1980. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Houston, Jason; 2024. Commentator in “Mitchell’s A-Body Boattail Riviera.” Dean’s Garage. Posted June 15 at 11:36 a.m.
- Wright, J. Patrick; 1979. On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors. Wright Enterprises, Grosse Pointe, MI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick Riviera (1971); Cadillac Eldorado (1971); Chevrolet Camaro (1971); Ford Thunderbird (1972); Pontiac Firebird (1970); Oldsmobile Toronado (1971); Pontiac Grand Prix (1973)
Buick or maybe Cadillac could had produced an exact stretched 2nd generation Corvette. It’s more straight look would be ideal at a B or even B (not D) body
An alternative use, imagine a respectively shrunken 1989 A body Oldsmobile Cutlass on an F body, aka the Firebird of Oldsmobile. The same with Grand national
I remember this generation of Riv when new. It was just not appropriate for the time – it looked wrong. These days I am much more accepting of what the design was trying to do with the complex surfacing although the scale is still too large.
The multiple pictures shown of the smaller original design in the recent Dean’s Garage post do show something that was better. But, I do believe that it still needed more refinement on the roof shape and rear window size. Interesting comments in the article about how the head of Buick that approved the boat tail was not the leader of Buick when it went into production. The then current head never like the boat tail.
The original leader thinks that the marketing of the boat tail was wrong which led to it underperforming in sales.
Should this have been another “A Special” platform as used for the Grand Prix and Monte Carlo? That was where the market was hot. But, did Buick think that this was a market segment beneath their hierarchy standing?
Was this one of Mitchell’s lesser achievements? Yes, but I find that most of his 1973 A bodies (except the Pontiac Grand Am) were worse.
Most of the 1973 A-bodies were worse than the boat-tail Riviera? I haven’t done a deep data dive, but my general impression is that all four brands did relatively well for the mid-sized field from 1973-77. Buick was often a laggard, but it had been during the previous generation of A-bodies.
It’s interesting that you mention the Grand Am. I like the way they dressed it up over the regular LeMans models, but I really dislike the side sculpting and rounded deck. Too gimmicky, particularly compared to the clean lines of the 1968-69 mid-sized Pontiacs.
For me, the body sides of the 1973 A bodies were just way over done in cross section sculpting. In mid cycle some got a clean up of that side sculpting that made it better. The Monte Carlo may have sold very well with that go for baroque look but in was unloved by designers.
As for the Grand Am, a stellar nose job for its time. Too bad Pontiac never adopted in across the rest of their A bodies. The side sculpting was restrained compared to some of the others. At least the character shapes were in keeping with the rest of the body shapes. You have an issue with the sloping tail but it was fully in keeping with the body side treatment and made the tail distinctive.
IF you come across one, look at the C pillar on the 4 door from the rear to see just how much refinement in the shaping it took by the clay modelers to make the highlight lines work correctly. I remember how it was Harry Bradley that brought this our our group’s attention.
Yeah, the front end of the Grand Am was cool. I prefer the cleaner side styling of the Grand Prix, though. And once 5 mph bumpers were added, the sloping back of the LeMans didn’t work nearly as well.
I give GM credit for giving the mid-sized four-door sedans a six-window treatment that went against the brougham look. By the same token, they also bucked the dominant approach to station wagon design by ditching a traditional tailgate in favor of a liftgate.
During the 1970s GM was often more willing to experiment than the rest of the Big Three. Sometimes it didn’t work all that well (e.g., the 1971-76 B-body wagon’s clamshell tailgate), but they should get at least a wee bit of credit for trying something different.
Agreed that the Monte Carlo was terrible. The frustrating part about automotive styling is that good taste and good sales don’t always align.
Here are the inspirations for the 1973-1977 Pontiac A-bodies: First the Grand-Am, Bill Mitchell’s “Phantom”:
https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.vjcTyJvWjwT-mzTCpztQvQAAAA?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain
Then the 1961 XP: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/84/b3/a784b38293934355f765fbfd0d13f1dc.jpg
Using the F-body would have presented serious challenges in maintaining the level of noise, vibration and harshness control expected by Riviera buyers. Note that when GM downsized its intermediates for 1978, and large personal luxury coupes for 1979, it retained body-on-frame construction in both instances to better ensure a quiet ride.
If Buick had downsized the Riviera for 1971, it would have forced the division to make some difficult decisions. If it had downsized the Riviera and then decided not to build its intermediate specialty coupe for 1973 – the Regal – it would have been forced to cut the Riviera’s price, or else face the prospect of losing a considerable amount of sales. Intermediate personal luxury coupes were THE hot segment of the 1970s.
If had downsized the Riviera for 1971, and then introduced the Regal for 1973, it would have been faced with the prospect of selling two specialty coupes that were roughly the same size but at two very different price points. Customers would have noted this, and I’m not sure that the distinctive styling would have been enough to sway a sufficient number of customers to buy the Riviera over the Regal. Particularly since the cheaper Regal would have been more in tune with customer desires in this segment.
Maybe, but maybe not. For one thing, over the 1970s Buick would broaden its lineup to the point where the distinctions between it and less-expensive GM brands would blur, e.g., with the compact Apollo/Skylark and the subcompact Skyhawk.
In addition, an F-bodied Riviera would inevitably need to be repositioned in the marketplace, e.g., with more emphasis on its sporting capabilities. It wouldn’t be a traditional luxo-barge anymore, so Buick would have had to cede that market to the Toronado.
If Buick went this direction, one could reasonably argue that keeping the Riviera name would be problematic — and I wouldn’t disagree.
Indeed, I would go as far as to argue that biggest problem with the boat-tail design concept is that it represented too big of a break from the Riviera’s heritage. I don’t know where the basic idea would have better fit in GM’s lineup, which makes me wonder whether it should have gone beyond show car status.
The Riviera name had considerable equity by 1971, so one can understand Buick’s reluctance to abandon the name, or radically reposition the car in the marketplace.
The previous two generations of Riviera had received decent reviews for their braking and handling capabilities. They weren’t a Camaro Z-28 – let alone a BMW 2002 – but early Rivieras were more than a soft, luxurious barge on wheels. This was particularly true of the GS versions.
With the 1971 Riviera, Mitchell was striving to achieve two goals. The 1963 and 1966 Rivieras had been lauded for their handsome styling. Mitchell was trying to come up with Act III. The first two Rivieras, however, had been viewed as clean, sleek and somewhat restrained. The 1971 model was flamboyant and over-the-top, which wasn’t necessarily what Buick customers were seeking in 1971.
I also believe that this car was Mitchell’s response to the Lincoln Continental Mark III. Mitchell was trying to reclaim styling leadership in the premium personal luxury coupe segment. This Riviera repudiates virtually every styling trick and theme used on the Mark III. In many ways, it’s the “anti-Mark.”
The Riviera would not get back on track until the debut of the 1979 model, which was quite popular with the public and received good reviews from testers. It was also downsized considerably from this generation, so Mitchell’s fight to have the 1971 model on the A-body was vindicated in the long run.
Buick didn’t have to abandon the Riviera nameplate altogether — it could have given an F-bodied boat tail a different name and kept the Riviera as a big personal coupe. It could have even been a fairly simple variant of the B-body like the 1977-78 models.
The armchair designer in me really wants the boat-tail Riviera to succeed, and so I find myself thinking about how it might have worked better if, for example, the C-pillar had been thrust forward rather than vertical and the tail less pointed. The basic shape could have been improved at least somewhat, but it still doesn’t really work on such a big car.
That said, once the boat tail came out, I think that Buick could have more gracefully transitioned away from it (go here for further discussion).
Why, oh why was G.M.’s vaunted Central Planning Executive Committee not seeing the handwriting on the wall ? Chevrolet and Pontiac full-size car sales were beginning to slide year-to-year, with the intermediate car sales inching ever higher. The most important G.M. cars were the 1969 Grand Prix, the 1970 Monte Carlo and the 1970 Cutlass Supremes as a reference for future volume, all based on A-body platforms. Perhaps G.M Car & Truck Executive Veep John Z. DeLorean saw the bigger picture, which may have been why he was pushing for slightly downsized A-bodies for 1972 (pushed to 1973 because of the 1970 U.A.W. strike). Why the worry of an A-body-based Riviera was a step down from the 1966-1970 Rivieras is another mystery to me because the back seat of the earlier Rivieras were not that roomy, and certainly B-body back seats in a Buick coupe were not the vast Kansas plains. I had family members with a 1969 Grand Prix LJ and a 1973 fully optioned Monte Carlo: Both back seats were not much roomier than my brother’s 1974 Camaro ! I always thought that a personal luxury coupe was supposed to be intimate and limited in seating: Not the size of a Chevrolet Suburban. The 1963-1965 Rivieras had a wheelbase of 117-inches and an overall length of 208-inches. The 1966-1970 Rivieras grew to a 119-inch wheelbase and overall length of 211-inches. The 1971 Riviera shrank the wheelbase to 112-inches but the overall length ballooned to 218.3-inches !
1971 Riviera’s wheelbase was 122 inches.
I do agree, however, that the 1971 Riviera, as produced, was simply too big. But that was a problem shared with its corporate cousins, as well as the 1972-76 Ford Thunderbird. The entire segment was simply too bloated to come across as either sporty or personal.
Back in the mid 1970s it was said that the car purchased after one had had a Corvette was a Riviera. This came from Harry Bradley so I tend to believe it was based on some internal information.
When trying to understand how this could be true think of the Corvette buyers getting the fully optioned versions not looking for ultimate performance but “stylish luxury”. After they realized that the Corvette lacked space and had too much sporting NVH, the Riv represented the attributes they really wanted. It looked stylish and “sporty” but with all the creature comforts they actually wanted at a comparable price point.
That makes sense, but did they want a boat-tailed Riviera? Production figures suggest that the more understated styling of the Toronado was more popular.
Seeing the Riveria and the Toronado helps me understand why the Cutlass and Skylark sold so well in the 70s. I know which one I would have gravitated to on the lot. Both of them got a few whacks from the ugly stick that the A bodies didn’t. A front Enduro bumper would have done wonders for them, I don’t get why GM designed them this way when their styling was top notch 5 years earlier. Did the design give people impetus to shop luxury coupes from Europe?
The first time I saw a boat tail Riviera in 1970 I thought it was about the ugliest car I ever saw, it was a joke it was so ugly. I don’t understand the praise it seems to get. And I think its poor sales prove the buying public thought it was bad. I actually knew someone who owned a 71 at the time. The Rivieras built afterwards on that platform through 76 were even worse. How could anyone approve a design like that for production? The Toronados, Thunderbirds, Eldorado and Marks of the time though large were attractive
With all this talk about the boat-tail Riviera, let’s enjoy to see this vintage road-test done by Bud Lindemann of Car & Track testing a 1971 Riviera.;-)
Dean’s Garage featured this car recently.
See “Notes” at bottom of story.
Own a 1971 Riviera, so I’m biased. And I wasn’t around in 1971. I showed up almost a decade later.
I think it’s simply one of the most unique and striking cars of the 70s.
Sitting in one, things begin to make sense. You can see the sweepspear in the driver’s mirror. The car has a centre line running through the whole vehicle. Inside and out.
The interior is beyond anything else on the road. Smaller would have been better, but it’s beautiful no matter what.