Jump to content

Most desirable year


Recommended Posts

On 1/13/2012 at 12:12 PM, MartyWorld said:

The 63 is the first and the last...............first Riviera and last of the Dynaflow.

Marty

Marty, must agree with you regarding the 63 with leather and DynoFlow. The 65 had options that I liked. The lines in the body design struck me when I was boy. I will say the AC in the 63 is hard for me to work on, but I did get it finished.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing how this thread seems to die in 2012 only to be resurrected nine years later. It's as if it has a life all of it's own. Upon reflexion i believe that with the Riviera's popularity and because so many have changed hands that it's not the thread that has it's own life it's the car. It's a whole new generation that has discovered the car. May it live forever.

 

I like Buicks, but I'm not a Buick lover. I do, however, love the Riviera. I'm also partial to the first gen cars. As far as year, each has it's own character. I like a car because of it's condition and originality. I own a 1963 and a 1965. I believe that the 63 is a little more elegant, while the 65 is more compact and sorted out looking. One thing that really stands out on the 63, is sliding into those sumptuous original leather seats. The vinyl looks great in the 65, but it just ain't the same. 

Edited by Buffalowed Bill (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Resurrecting an old thread usually means that someone is using their head and doing a search before just starting a new thread.  SMART.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/24/2021 at 2:40 PM, Buffalowed Bill said:

I believe that the 63 is a little more elegant, while the 65 is more compact and sorted out looking. One thing that really stands out on the 63, is sliding into those sumptuous original leather seats. The vinyl looks great in the 65, but it just ain't the same. 

'Leather for 1963' I agree. For an original car, I've got that in my '63.

 

Also to consider for 1st gens, Turbine wheels on 2 of the 3 production years. Then there's 2nd gens, undecided on 1969 or 70, like them both for their powertrains and styling

 

For 1st gens, 401 cu inches is plenty displacement for me but I do like some of the features that 1965 Riviera's have. Not so much clam-shell headlights but retractor seat belts, ribbed rocker panels, awesome dashboard and switchpitch transmission. I plan to swap-out the Dynaflow to install the latter, so no longer original, just tastefully tweaked. I will have updated my Riv to my liking but it will still appear original.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Having only owned a '65 Gran Sport, I am very biased, and consider the 1965 to be the most desirable year Riviera.

 

The '65 was the most developed of the 1st Gen Rivieras, engineering and styling-wise. 

 

The '65 Riviera Gran Sport was Buick's answer to the emerging muscle car craze, along with the Skylark Gran Sport also released that year.  The Riviera didn't fit the muscle car mold of big engine stuffed in a mid-sized car (e.g. GTO), the Skylark GS did.  The Riv was geared to the personal luxury set that wanted exceptional performance from an (almost) full sized car.  The '65 Riv GS is acknowledged to be the top performer, thanks to its performance oriented equipment including arguably the best automatic transmission ever: the Super Turbine 400, with variable pitch torque converter.  All the elements were in place to go fast, with class, in a beautifully styled automobile: the Buick Riviera!

 

From any angle the '65 looks great.  A well-integrated design.  Yes, the same body as the '63 and '64, but on these earlier cars the headlights in the grille seemed (elegantly) tacked on.  The fake louvers on the rear quarters were gone for '65, giving the car a cleaner, almost custom appearance.  Nowhere on the outside of the '65 (or '64) does "BUICK" appear.  I still get people asking me who made my "Riviera" car.  

 

The single element that infatuated me with the '65 was those clamshell headlights. The coolest thing ever for a car nut!  No other car has this type of hide-away headlamp system.  A one-year wonder.  And for a reason, as the many dealer service bulletins on visor repair will attest.  Older guys call them the "Knight's Helmet" headlamps; younger ones may recall "Pac-Man".  Whatever you call them, they are about the coolest thing any designer ever put on a car.

 

My second choice would be the '66/'67 Riviera.  I love its clean and integrated design. This is also a beautiful automobile.  The interior isn't quite as nice as in the earlier cars, but with bucket-seat and console they are very handsome indeed.  Too bad they went with the horizontal dash and drum speedo, with no connection to the console which became optional. The 1st Gen dash is just more sporting, with round dials and its integrated console.  

 

Third choice would be the '71/'72.  The Boattail Rivieras are also striking cars. They sported some nice looking interiors.  But, they're huge cars, so lack some of the sporting flavor that Riviera had been associated with.  

 

image.png.4bdf49d6fcdead2a9f8f96b3115ae8a7.png

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest problem with the 65 GS (Skylark) if you ordered with the automatic rather than the 4 speed, is that the automatic was the TWO speed ST300.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most desirable car should be the one you own or you bought the wrong car.

When I bought my '63 I was looking for a '65 but now I'm glad I did.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Every year has advantages and disadvantages. It’s all a matter of what you’re willing to trade off.  I think the leather in the 63 is a top shelf advantage.  The Dynaflow in my 63 is a love hate relationship. I love the smoothness of it but it’s not very fuel efficient.  I like my cast aluminum covers; everybody and his brother have rally wheels on anything that has a 5 on 5 bolt circle - old 50’s era Buick’s, Chevy pickup trucks, trailers, etc. They’re not as unique as they were when they were new.  It seems like there are a lot of guys trying to sort out problems with their 65’s clam shells.  Pick your battles carefully. You’ll rarely change anyone’s opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked my 63 that I had. I didn't mind the Dynaflow especially how smooth it was. The fuel economy wasn't bad even on regular gas. I sometimes used it as a daily driver in the 90's when I had it and managed to average around 16 mpgs when I included lots of freeway. The car still had most of it's original leather interior but the driver's seat was redone in the same color and pattern in vinyl. The rest was pretty dried out and had some splits. I tried to recondition  it but nothing worked. I would have liked a '65. I preferred the looks of the concealed headlights but I don't really care for the diamond pattern of their interiors and the rest of the design looked a bit cheap compared to a 63/64. I bought the 63 since it was a nice car compared to what else was available for the same price range plus it was a one owner car.

Edited by Bleach (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2021 at 7:44 AM, RivNut said:

Biggest problem with the 65 GS (Skylark) if you ordered with the automatic rather than the 4 speed, is that the automatic was the TWO speed ST300.

Yes, but at least the ST300 had a variable pitch ("switch pitch) torque converter.  That was like having an extra gear!  This same feature was put into the ST400 used in the larger cars from '65 to '67.

The Skylark automatic with switch-pitch had the advantage of extra torque multiplication from standing start against other the two-speed automatic equipped Chevrolet or Pontiac cars which had to rely on the 1.76 or 1.82 first gear ratio.

 

On 4/24/2021 at 3:04 PM, Bleach said:

I liked my 63 that I had. I didn't mind the Dynaflow especially how smooth it was. The fuel economy wasn't bad even on regular gas. I sometimes used it as a daily driver in the 90's when I had it and managed to average around 16 mpgs when I included lots of freeway. The car still had most of it's original leather interior but the driver's seat was redone in the same color and pattern in vinyl. The rest was pretty dried out and had some splits. I tried to recondition  it but nothing worked. I would have liked a '65. I preferred the looks of the concealed headlights but I don't really care for the diamond pattern of their interiors and the rest of the design looked a bit cheap compared to a 63/64. I bought the 63 since it was a nice car compared to what else was available for the same price range plus it was a one owner car.

My '65 RIv Gran Sport was my daily driver from 1983 to 1990.  I averaged about 12 mpg in the city.  The best mileage I ever got was about 16 for highway driving, cruising at 60mph.  These are thirsty cars!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to put a little more zip into your ST400, install a torque converter from an ST300 in it.  The flex plate behind your 401/425 already has the holes drilled in it to accommodate the ST300 converter. Don’t know that I’d call it an extra gear, more like slipping the clutch on a manual transmission to get the RPMs up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...