1963 Frame Unique?

[X-Frame]

I am still a bit confused when it comes to the 1963 Riviera frame.

Some say that it used the standard Buick frame of that year while others say no, it had its own unique frame. Yet, I do see conflicting diagrams by Tru-Way and GM that depict very different rear frame widths. I know that 1964 onwards seem to be basically the same with one change along the way around 1966.

Can someone verify about 1963? Thanks!

Eric

[steelman]

Not that you can believe everything you read, but here is what Wikipedia says. maybe this will help.

The production Riviera shared its bodyshell with no other model, which was unusual for a GM product. It rode a cruciform frame similar to the standard Buick frame, but shorter and narrower, with a 2.0 in (51 mm) narrower track. Its wheelbase of 117 in (3,000 mm) and overall length of 208 in (5,300 mm) were 6.0 inches (150 mm) and 7.7 in (200 mm) shorter, respectively, than a Buick LeSabre, but slightly longer than a contemporary Thunderbird. At 3,998 lb (1,813 kg),<SUP id=cite_ref-1 class=reference>[2]</SUP> it was about 390 pounds (180 kg) lighter than either. It shared the standard Buick V8 engines, with a displacement of either 401 cu in (6.57 L) or 425 cu in (6.96 l), and Twin Turbine automatic transmission. Brakes were Buick's standard "Al-Fin" (aluminum finned) drums of 12 in (300 mm) diameter. Power steering was standard equipment, with an overall steering ratio of 20.5:1, giving 3.5 turns lock-to-lock.

[X-Frame]

Steelman

Doesn't really answer the question. Makes it sound like the '63 shared the same frame as the '64-'66 Riviera.

Then again, like I said, some say that they basically pushed the '63 out the door and didn't have time to tweak a frame for it so used the base Buick cruciform on it then switched up to a unique frame from '64 onward..

Just wish someone knew for sure! Even my frame diagram charts contridict themselves.

Eric

[tjthorson]

My understanding when researching putting a 64 drivetrain into a 63 was that the center section and crossmember were different because of the dynaflow to ST400 trans change in 64... Not sure that really answers your question either - but it bumps your request to the top at least.

[Guest Dan Cook]

This would probably be something I should know too since I'm new to the Riviera scene.

[RivNut]

I've got both a '63 and a '64 in my garage now, and I've had others of each year plus I've parted out quite a few. The only difference I've found between a 63 and 64 frame (65 for that matter) is the transmission crossmember, which is actually bolted on. (The dynaflow crossmember sits closer to the front.) I once had a '63 with a '65 engine and transmission in it. It was a cobble up mess. I got a '65 crossmember, drilled a couple of holes in the frame and everything looked OE. Any time you order chassis parts for one of the three years, it will cross reference to the other two.

Ed

PS - The '63 was not "pushed out the door." There are pictures in the ROA library and in some of the books I have of a protoype '63 sitting next to a NEW 1958 Thunderbird. The Riviera was on the drawing board for a long time before it came into production.

[Jim Cannon]

"Unique" may be a strong word. Technically there will be slight changes in many different parts of these cars from year to year, even though they share so much in common. The transmission mount is a good example. I guess it depends on what you are going to do with the answer. I would say that the '63 is very similar to the '64 and '65, but not a bolt in replacement. The differences will be enough to drive you crazy with small items not quite lining up. But sitting next to each other on the shop floor they will not look that different. It is not the same as "the standard Buick frame" (whatever that is).