Riviera Frame - History and Questoons

[X-Frame]

While researching for our book and working on the GM frames, I believe I have answers concerning "why" Buick continued using the X frame well beyond other GM cars? Seeking input.

Passing the below on to you seeing if anything mentioned rang true or not with you? I have a much expanded historical narrative concerning this for our book but below is a very quickly written “Reader’s Digest” version

Why did Buick Riviera continue using the X long after other GM cars had abandoned it?

Short story is that Chrysler lit a fire under everyone’s butt with their new lower designs. Buick sales had been down due to stereotyping long before the 1958 recession that also hit the industry. A low, wide, and edgy design was introduced for the 1959 model year in hopes of drawing more than the traditional Buick buyer but it backfired. Traditionalists hated the design and a steel worker’s strike in 1960 put Buick in 9^th place with sales. With the new body came a new chassis as well called the “Equipoise” K-Frame. But it too failed because the K still obstructed front footwell depths and it retained the torque tube drive, a Buick trademark since 1907 which was plagued with jounce-creating un-sprung weight. So in 1961 a completely new design approach was presented in a lighter, smaller, more conservative car which utilized the currently Tubular Center X-Frame introduced on GM cars in 1957. The oddity here is that the other makes were phasing this out and Pontiac dropped it the same year Buick picked it up. The new frame did not allow for the torque tube so it was discontinued after a 52-year run but did allow for the needed dropped and flatter floors to compensate for the lower body profile. In April 1961 the Riviera was approved and executives wanted it out the door for the 1963 model year which meant on such a short time schedule the same X frame used on the other Buicks was utilized with slight alterations for wheelbase and body size differences. And since the Riviera body was approved for a 3-year run, this put it a year past when Buick had dropped this frame on the other models leaving the 1965 Riviera the last and only GM vehicle using the Tubular Center-X Frame. For the 1966 model year came changes once again including those for suspension upgrades to the frame yet Buick continued on until 1970 with this wasp-waisted chassis. One explanation was that the 1966 Riviera shared the E-Body also used on the front-wheel drive Toronado and Eldorado, designed to be a unibody car so the shell was stronger than in previous years and thus no need to change frames already working on a low production car. In 1971 the X was finally dropped and changed to a perimeter frame design again resulting from last minute design changes and for budget reason sharing other Buick platform components.

Eric Huffstutler

Edited May 15, 2014 by X-Frame (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

The investment in the design and manufacture of the Buick X chassis was significantly greater than the lesser GM cars. When I had my Riviera frame out from under my car a local Chevy collector had the frame out of his 1964 Impala. Just the number of inches of welding was amazing. The massiveness and number of sections was a lot more on the Buick.

Those around at the time may remember how Chevies would fold in the top of the quarters when raised on a bumper jack. There were some long faces on those who left the car on a jack over night. Buick, with such a robust frame probably didn't want to give it up for the flexible flyer perimeter frame of the 1965 B and C bodies. It was pretty much hand made anyway.

The body mounting is really interesting. It is basically suspended over the frame. The mounting at the base of the firewall and the rear kick up carry the weight. Most cars have 8 to 12 longitudinal mounts that settle in and transmit frame vibrations with age. The Riviera squishes the load bearing mounts down pretty good but always have some insulating effect. Mounts at the rear wheel house and the oval rear ones generally don't show the effects of weight at all. In fact, a lot of wheel house mounts have rotted away.

I like the design and the extra rigidity of the rocker panels. A pretty good design in my book.

Bernie

Edited May 15, 2014 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[X-Frame]

Bernie... I know that some frame may have been built as convertible types with thicker gauge steel or have extra welded strips along the top of the frame rails. Chevrolet in 1958 boasted as well as having heavier rockers and floor supports. From what read the 1966 Riviera - they want it to also be a FWD car like Toronado and Eldorado and all shared the same body which was built like a unibody so these did have a heavier construction minus the frame.

Guess I am wondering why Buick picked up on the X frame after the K type rather than a perimeter one? And if Pontiac dropping it the year Buick picked it up had anything to do with one another?

[Guest clamshells]

I've had my Chevy and Fords cars over the years, nothing sits on jack stands or blocks like my Rivs did. How many 50 year old cars have doors that close sweet like a Riv ;-)

[RivNut]

Did Pontiac's involvement in NASCAR around that time perhaps have anything to do with their discontinuance of the X-frame? Is the ladder frame a better race car frame?

[X-Frame]

There were some lawsuits going on about this time involving deaths from side impacts against GM. The people lost because the courts sided with GM stating that the company had an obligation to manufacture a car that was free from flaws but not responsible for safety because crashes were unpredictable and saw it unrealistic to design a car for all kinds of crashes. GM knew that the Oldsmobile was safer and that the cruciform tubular frame was not as safe even before it went into production according to SAE documents. They were phasing it out then and in 1961 not only Pontiac changed but so did Oldsmobile. Cadillac and Chevy changed in 1965 as did Buick except Riviera.

[60FlatTop]

This is my '64 and I have also had a '68 apart:

My cars didn't have the stiffening fish plates on the top or bottom. There is much more boxing than the Chevy X frame. In the forward area there were many welds and triangulated filler pieces.

In the 1950's GM was designing cars on an 8 year lead time. In 1958 when the LaSalle II project was floated to the divisions Oldsmobile was already working on the Toronado. That Toro/Eldo frame was conceptually similar to the late '30's Buick abbreviated frame that ended at the coil spring mounts.

I wouldn't put a lot of faith in lawyer's speculation on engineering. The unitized construction of my Riviera is stronger with less fracture and stress points than the GM or Ford Coke bottle frames, especially in the torque box area. The Coke bottle ones will fold easier from a side hit.

Recently, some sort of activists wrecked a '59 Chevy to demonstrate how safe new cars are. They "just happened" to find a X frame car to hit head on in the left front with a high center of gravity car. They found the weakest impact angle and folded the old Chevy up. Hit from the side there would have been a mess but much less dramatic. Maybe they did that first and it wasn't bad enough.

Be careful about referencing lawyers and law suits if you are maintaining a credible report:

Then you are prepared for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrXViFfMGk

Bernie

[X-Frame]

I got it covered Bernie concerning the legal end. I have done my research there since I work at a law firm :-) But there was one lawsuit (there are others) that is well known and used in classes ...

There is a line of cases directly supporting General Motors' contention that negligent design of an automobile is not actionable, where the alleged defective design is not a causative factor in the accident. The latest leading case on this point is Evans v. General Motors Corporation, 359 F.2d 822 (7 Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 836, 87 S.Ct. 83, 17 L.Ed.2d 70 (1966). A divided court there held that General Motors in designing an 'X' body frame without perimeter support, instead of an allegedly more safe perimeter body frame, was not liable for the death of a user allegedly caused by the designed defect because the defendant's design could not have functioned to avoid the collision. The Court reasoned at pp. 824 and 825 of 359 F.2d:

The above is from a study book... below is my entry for the book explaining the above:

" There was a high profile case which is still used in law schools as an example of how courts could render conflicting decisions and even overrule them for future cases.

The case of Evans v. General Motors Corporation where chemist Roy Lester Evans, PhD (1924-1964) was driving his wife’s 1961 Chevrolet Impala Nomad station wagon on January 25, 1964 in Evansville, Indiana to pick up his son from the movies. He drove through a blind hill intersection and was broadsided by a 1957 Ford driven by Alan Ray Tolley resulting in injuries that killed Evans and a passenger in the Ford (George Daniel McFadden, Jr. 1946-1964). Dr. Evans' widow Barbara acting on behalf of his estate and their four young children, claimed that GM was negligent in their design which caused her husband’s death and even cited GM's own admission that their 1959 Oldsmobile "Guard-Beam" frame with side rails protected from side impacts. The court denied her claim in 1965, she appealed the following year and lost again in the higher court because the judge made a majority ruling that the car’s frame was safe for its intended purpose and is neither accident proof nor fool-proof. That the obligation of the manufacturer was against construction defects and not design defects. Barbara remarried in 1969 and died just 2 days after her 70th birthday in 1990. "

Edited May 17, 2014 by X-Frame (see edit history)

[X-Frame]

I also have the SAE books and reports that printed the reports by the designers and testers of the frame and they admit that the design is flawed but safe in their eyes citing side impacts happen above the rockers and door posts actually absorb most of the impact and those were reinforced.

[X-Frame]

I still need to figure out about the 1966 Riviera continuation with the cruciform frame when they had an opportunity to switch. One person said it was due to the stronger body it shared with Toronado/Eldorado which was built like a unibody. Someone else at Hemmings says no way, that it was misunderstood and that the body only "looked" unibody by the roofline-quarter design. Then I also read that the body may have been built in part unibody - at least on Toronado from the 3rd frame support back (rear seat to rear bumper) as this is where the separate sub-frame is attached to the body and then connected to the main frame (Toronado-Eldorado had a 2-piece frame). It is getting confusing. Then I see that Riviera's cruciform was "beefier" than the other GM models using it and that in conjunction with a more sturdy body (one owner-restorer said that the rockers were substantial and built in 3-parts) was a solid car and no need for change. Got to find a definitive answer. Thanks!