General Motors has been criticized for going too far in downsizing its 1986 E-body personal coupes, which included the Buick Riviera, Oldsmobile Toronado and Cadillac Eldorado. Sales fell off a cliff, but they didn’t recover all that much even after the cars were boosted in size.
This raises a question: Were Richard M. Langworth and Jan P. Norbye on the right track in wondering whether the 1986 Eldorado and its siblings were “large and different enough to appeal to their traditional market” (1986, p. 404)?
Or were other factors at work, such as weak styling, quality-control issues and even an overall decline in the American personal coupe market?
The graph below tells a particularly stark story. E-body production fell a whopping 74 percent between 1985 and 1987. Although output increased over the next few years, that both modest and temporary.
The Riviera was shrunk to the original Mustang’s size
Designers chopped 19 inches in length and 560 pounds from the 1986 Riviera — quite close to the original Ford Mustang’s footprint. This was a pretty remarkable turn of events for a nameplate that a decade earlier adorned one of the largest personal coupes of the brougham era.
One could argue that GM’s second round of downsizing the E-body represented an admirably energetic response to critics such as Brock Yates, who had complained that Detroit’s cars were “too large, too heavy, too clumsy and too inefficient to meet the needs of the modern driver” (1983, preface).
The problem was that Riviera production fell from roughly 65,000 units in 1985 to only 22,000 units one year later. By 1988 output dropped to under 9,000 units.
In 1989 the Riviera was given revised sheet metal that included stretching the length by 11 inches. Production increased to just over 21,000 units but by 1993 had dropped to under 5,000 units.
Then in 1995 the Riviera was given a new body that was roughly the same size as in the early-80s. However, that led to only a small and temporary spike in sales. Size clearly wasn’t the only factor impacting the Riviera’s popularity.
Eldorado’s trajectory somewhat similar to Riviera’s
Eldorado output fell from over 76,000 units in 1986 to under 23,000 units in the first year of the redesign. In 1988 the car received a mild facelift that added three inches in length. Production went back up to roughly 33,000 units but by 1991 drifted down to around 16,000 units.
Only when the Eldorado was substantially redesigned in 1992 did output revive — but to a still-modest 31,000 units.
Toronado’s changes were the least successful
The newly downsized Toronado also saw its output fall dramatically, from roughly 42,000 units in 1985 to 16,000 units in 1986. Interestingly, the Toronado’s output was unusually close to the Riviera’s in 1986-87 and almost twice as high in 1988.
The tables were turned in 1989 when the Riviera received some new sheet metal but the Toronado did not until 1990. In an interview with Collectible Automobile, GM designer Glen Durmisevich said that “we ended up changing just about all the exterior sheet metal using the longer rear structure that Buick had set up, which is what those E-Body cars needed” (Witzenburg, 2024, p. 79).
Even though the Toronado received the most extensive redesign of the E-body triumvirate, output only improved to around 15,000 units. Over the next two years production trailed off to the point where the nameplate was discontinued.
If looking bigger was the key to success, the Toronado should have done the best of the E-body coupes. Due to a one-foot stretch, trunk space went up from 14.1 cubic feet to 15.8. That was somewhat bigger than the 1989 Riviera’s 14.4 cubic feet, presumably due to its much boxier deck.
Why did the Riviera and Eldorado do better?
I suspect that the Riviera and Eldorado sold somewhat better than the Toronado because their design updates were more aesthetically pleasing.
The Riviera gained a subtle boat tail that nicely evoked the nameplate’s glory days. Meanwhile, the Eldorado was given crisper lines that may have had a less international flavor but arguably better reflected Cadillac’s design heritage.
In contrast, the Toronado lost what had arguably been the best design of the 1986 E-body cars. A clean, vaguely coke-bottle shape was discarded in favor of a rather generic look that gave the car almost sedan-like proportions.
In fairness, we should also note that GM wasn’t the only automaker who saw the sales of its luxury personal coupes decline in the 1980s. The Ford Motor Company did too. In fact, from 1986-91 the Eldorado’s output tracked fairly closely to that of the Lincoln Continental Mark VII. Why?
Although the Mark VII was downsized to Ford’s compact platform, it was still similar in size to the larger, 1979-85 Eldorado. The Lincoln also had a conventional drivetrain, so if it faced buyer resistance, that may have been due to aerodynamic styling which “stretched the envelop too fair for its existing customer base,” according to Thomas E. Bonsall (2004, p. 169).
The auto editors of Consumer Guide noted that GM’s E-body coupes suffered from their own problems, such as quality-control glitches in early models.
In addition, “hardly anyone liked” the Riviera’s touch-sensitive controls screen (2006, p. 63). And might sales have also been undercut by greater price hikes compared to the Mark series?
The primary lesson General Motors appears to have learned was that the 1986 downsizing needed to be completely reversed. So when the Eldorado was given a full redesign in 1992, its new size and weight were similar to the 1979-85 models. The same was true of the Riviera, which went out of production in 1994 but returned with a radically different look in 1995.
Another lesson GM appears to have learned was that it should try harder to differentiate its remaining two luxury personal coupes. As you can see from the above images, no one would confuse a 1995 Eldorado and Riviera.
As it turned out, neither of those lessons would prove to be the secret to success. The next-generation Eldorado and Riviera would sell so poorly that they were discontinued in 2002 and 1999, respectively. GM, which had historically been strongest in the upper reaches of the marketplace, was losing its touch.
NOTES:
Production figures and specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Automobile Catalog (2024), Gunnell (2002), and Flammang and Kowalke (1999).
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International; Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Automobile Catalog; 2024. “Full detailed specifications listing and photo gallery.” Accessed June 27.
- Bonsall, Thomas E.; 2004. The Lincoln Story: The Postwar Years. Stanford General Books, Stanford, CA.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1986. The Complete History of General Motors 1908-1986. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
- Witzenburg, Gary; 2024. “Glen Durmisevich: General Motyors and Navistar Designer.” Collectible Automobile. August issue: pp. 76-83.
- Yates, Brock; 1983. The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry. Empire Books, New York, NY.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Cadillac Eldorado (1986)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick Riviera (1985, 1986, 1995); Cadillac Eldorado (1986, 1988, 1995); Oldsmobile Toronado (1986, 1988, 1990)
Since the 1971 E body was heavily based upon the B body, I wonder why GM went to the expense of developing the new E/K platform instead of basing the 1986 E bodies on the new C/H platform. My understanding is the E/K platform was originally so narrow that GM had to add two inches to the width to accommodate the V8 in the Seville and Eldorado.
Yes, GM went too far in downsizing these for 1986. According to “Klockau, Tom (11 June 2017). “Curbside Classic: 1986 Cadillac Eldorado – A Swing And A Miss”. Curbside Classic. Retrieved 9 September 2020″ the reason was based upon some consultant’s projection of a price hike in gasoline that never materialized.
Even at the time I viewed these small iterations as trying hard to hit the package of the BMW 6 Series coupes. Not necessarily a bad target but not going to be acceptable for the normal American luxury coupe buyer.
Other assorted points:
The Lincoln Mark VI was a horribly executed design. It tried to be a smaller Mark V with none of the proportional grace.
The Lincoln Mark VII was a very different animal. Not only was it taking a different aesthetic approach it was also making a lot of noise with its LSC version that was making it sporty in a far more Euro luxury coupe way.
The generational difference are important to understand when looking at the production numbers. These put the individual model into better context as the spikes indicated the level of acceptance.
Dean’s Garage has an article on the development of the 1992 Eldo. The Eldo was under serious threat of being discontinued because of a lack of enough sales. GM Design had to make their exterior proposal in competition with Guigaro; and won. This was a big deal development under the new VP Design Chuck Jordan.
The downsized GMs of 1986 were created during Irv Ribycki’s tenure as GM’s VP Design. He had been selected to be VP, over Mitchell’s recommendation of Jordan, with a key element of that because he would be far more amenable to corporate “guidance”. He and Jordan had a tense relationship and one can find some “stories” by the designers of getting conflicting design directions from the two of them. One that is very clear during this time is far more parts sharing that hurt brand individuality. It was also during Irv’s leadership that GM lost being the Detroit design leader; first to Ford under Jack Telnack then later to Chrysler under Tom Gale.
I keep shaking my head at the comments deriding trunk space. Who is buying a personal luxury coupe because of the trunk? Does it still have enough to hold some suitcases? If one really needs more trunk space then get the station wagon instead. Bob Lutz did a whole story about chasing percentile numbers against the perceived competition. But in the end the consumer’s eyes glass over because all the numbers don’t matter if the car doesn’t look right.
Another factor may be that the cohort of customers for the American luxury coupe were aging out of new car purchases as they downsized their lives. Where a buyer may have had two or three cars, they now wanted only one. Older drivers and their passengers tend to have difficulty squeezing into back seats of coupes. The buyer might then consider a smaller sedan if they were to have only one car.
I watched this transition play out with my own family and the families of friends. American luxury coupes gave way to Accords, Acuras, Lexus’, and Mazda 929s.
I wonder if an element of the consumer preference change is that with the advent of high back seats, shoulder harnesses, and fixed B pillars there became a perceived nuisance factor in getting into the back seat.
Certainly, the market for the Detroit luxury coupe dwindled while the MB and BMW market continued longer. Then one can point to the Bentley Continental in 2003 to see that there remained a market although at a far higher price point and in more limited numbers that Detroit plans for. I think that an argument can be made that the Bentley is a modern throwback to the decedent Mark III & IV and the Eldos. But, the Bentley SUV outsells it now.