Recommended Posts

On 7/29/2018 at 6:35 PM, jframe said:

I get quizzed A LOT about the stance on my 65. Most people think I lowered it, or have worn.out springs. This photo of the King's 63 should put those questions to rest.

Elvis’s car is just too low. It just is   Must have had a few girls in the trunk?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Chimera said:

We need a 66-67 version of the silver arrow...and 70!

Screen Shot 2018-09-15 at 1.10.41 AM.png

Silver Arrow II was based on a 1970.  I believe it was destroyed after they were done with it but not 100% sure.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chasander said:

Thought road wheels started in 65

 

They first appeared as an option in1964, but only on the Wildcat. In 1965, they became an option on the Riviera. So why are they on the 63 in the ad is anyone's guess.  I'm guessing that the ad is not period correct.

Edited by RivNut (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was my first Riviera GS, purchased from Bill in Auburn, 388038560_Scan_20180902(6).thumb.jpg.8dc3477ed860bfe2beb4378a1ffce788.jpg

 

NY in January 1999. This is the picture I took of the two of them before I drove it home.

 

I sold that car in 2010, this is the transport driver loading it up. There were 3 other vehicles in the van, a Ferrari, Lamborghini and a 55 chevy pickup - all RED!

 

1351433241_Scan_20180902(2).thumb.jpg.0d76aafec01c40b58c820d1644188120.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phoemsen said:

This was my first Riviera GS, purchased from Bill in Auburn, 388038560_Scan_20180902(6).thumb.jpg.8dc3477ed860bfe2beb4378a1ffce788.jpg

 

NY in January 1999. This is the picture I took of the two of them before I drove it home.

 

I sold that car in 2010, this is the transport driver loading it up. There were 3 other vehicles in the van, a Ferrari, Lamborghini and a 55 chevy pickup - all RED!

 

1351433241_Scan_20180902(2).thumb.jpg.0d76aafec01c40b58c820d1644188120.jpg

 

Looks like Santa purchased some new sleds. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, that is not a real commercial, nor is it even a real car! Somebody made that commercial in his living room

using the soundtrack from an actual commercial. The car in the video appears to be a plastic model of a Riviera, so I don't

think you can go by it for proper stance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the past 15 or 20 years or so those styled steel wheels have changed from optional to obligatory, least that's what I been calling them.

Bernie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Seafoam65 said:

Ed, that is not a real commercial, nor is it even a real car! Somebody made that commercial in his living room

using the soundtrack from an actual commercial. The car in the video appears to be a plastic model of a Riviera, so I don't

think you can go by it for proper stance!

Even so, it is still representative of the factory stance.  Google 1963 Buick Riviera brochure and you'll see the same stance in all of the pictures.  

 

For example

 

4.thumb.jpg.d48bff97387238df8ed2cad7a764810f.jpg

 

the full length stainless is in line with the center of the wheel.  

 

I would think the only variance to this would be the H2 option for the 65 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chasander said:

Thought road wheels started in 65

 

Winston has identified this as a model car set to some original soundtrack.  So this is a conglomeration of parts.  Not a bad job though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RivNut said:

the full length stainless is in line with the center of the wheel. 

 

Yepper.

 

19 minutes ago, RivNut said:

I would think the only variance to this would be the H2 option for the 65 

 

Is that so?  I don't know, but were the HD springs different lengths as well as different rates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, KongaMan said:

 

Yepper.

 

 

Is that so?  I don't know, but were the HD springs different lengths as well as different rates?

It would be neat to see an H2 equipped 65 and a standard suspension car side by side. I have look at literally hundreds of 65's in pictures, and most of the stockers seem to have similar stances. The exception to me are the ones with obviously changed (read incorrect) springs that have a stance like a K5 Blazer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly the Riv. GS had springs that were 1" lower than stock with a slightly heavier spring rate & shocks to match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always liked the results I got on my car. The strip lines up with the centers pretty good and the 7.10 X 15 tires get the rest close.

 

Just one problem, that was 2013, I removed the vinyl top to paint the roof correctly, then put in a new windshield long overdue, picked up some '64 standard seat frames to reupholster , and then started monkeying around with other cars. And it ain't done yet. Last night at coffee I said paint was going on this year.

 

004.thumb.jpg.0c3a980081e512f7e1849d177a1a9ea1.jpg

Edited by 60FlatTop (see edit history)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60 Flattop I think your cars ride height is pretty darn close to correct. 

 

 Ed I hear what you are saying by referring to original pictures in ads but I think Buick/GM used to weight the cars down to be level for the photo shoots. Very noticeable in the Cadillac ads and brochures back in the day. In person though, the cars sit just a little above level. Just what have noticed. 

Edited by Paul K. (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2018 at 4:00 PM, 60FlatTop said:

I always liked the results I got on my car. The strip lines up with the centers pretty good and the 7.10 X 15 tires get the rest close.

 

Just one problem, that was 2013, I removed the vinyl top to paint the roof correctly, then put in a new windshield long overdue, picked up some '64 standard seat frames to reupholster , and then started monkeying around with other cars. And it ain't done yet. Last night at coffee I said paint was going on this year.

 

004.thumb.jpg.0c3a980081e512f7e1849d177a1a9ea1.jpg

Bernie,  

What did you put into your car to weight it down so the trim piece is lined up with the center of the wheels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RivNut said:

What did you put into your car to weight it down so the trim piece is lined up with the center of the wheels?

 

I bought the correct rear springs from a specialty spring winding company. I don't remember the name but it may have been Suspension Specialties. The first set was just an over the counter set and the car sat too high. My current front springs are MOOG from NAPA. As I remember the fronts were $100 for the pair, but the rears ran me about $300 plus the pair I couldn't use.

The actual body weight rearward from the back seat it quite light. The heavy part is the unsprung weight of the axle. Even though the frame is heavy the greatest weight is forward.

 

At the time of the final tightening all the suspension bushing points were spread and free from any drag on the serrations of the bushings. And the car was sitting with full weight resting on the level floor.

Also, the chassis manual instructions for installation of the rear springs were followed to the letter. Spacer blocks were used between the spring and axle, with the spring ends pointed in the direction recommended.

You have to do it yourself.

Bernie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2018 at 12:28 PM, RivNut said:

Google 1963 Buick Riviera brochure and you'll see the same stance in all of the pictures. 

Ed, this image (based on the date must be a '64) almost shows it riding a tad higher where the chrome strip appears to be just near top of centre of the hubs and one still sees whitewall at the top of the rear wheel unlike the ad you posted in #37...(??)

 

Later,

 

Mike Swick

Edmonton, AB

----

MPG-64077-0001-1024x808.thumb.jpg.e8971b44d62693c44d8920234f41e434.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

                    The slight difference can be attributed to having an almost empty gas tank versus a full tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ride height is all relative to what all is in the car.  My fat butt, a bunch of stuff in the trunk will make mine different than someone else's.  The longer I sit in it, the more it's going to start to sag.  I don't think anyone is walking around the show field with a micrometer checking rid height.  If one guy is running 215/75 tires on his car and the next guy has 225/75 on his and the third guy has 235/70 on his they're all going to have different ride heights. So the first thing to do to make sure that your car sits correctly is to buy a set of 7.10 or 7.60 bias ply tires.  Then another problem comes up.  Which of the two sizes came on my car originally.   Can anyone quote the page and paragraph from the judging manual that states what the ride height should be.  The only thing that I know of that is stated is the overall height for the entire car and I don't think that's in the manual either.   I just think that the cars look correct when the center of the wheel is pretty much in line with the trim strip on the side and the rear wheel arch is just a shade higher than the rim.  There were also trailering springs options available back them.  That could make a difference in the ride height as well.  The picture above is from a test ground.  Who;s to say it wasn't especially equipped for the testing purposes.  My last statement.  Do what ever you think is necessary to set the car at the height you think it should be. I'd spend my time worrying about the correct sized white side wall tire.   Make sure that when you repaint, you use acrylic lacquer, not this modern base coat clear coat stuff.  Don't be running any unleaded fuel in it either.  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have compared several with gs springs and height on a flat surface and reasonable gas in the tank is from the ground to the bottom of the wheel well 24 inches front 23 inches rear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RivNut said:

There were also trailering springs options available back them.  That could make a difference in the ride height as well.  The picture above is from a test ground.  Who;s to say it wasn't especially equipped for the testing purposes.

 

Although the potential exists that the proving ground car was 'tailored' for a specific series of tests, and I totally agree that what's in a car, age, tires, big-assed drivers, etc, does make a difference in ride heights, but personally, I would tend to accept the test car image as a 'baseline' factory height over the ad images... Kinda like GM making their factual statement on file (#64077) and the media (aka GM ad department) creates the fake news to excite their base... ?

 

For what it's worth, although I'm running radial tires, and 50+ year olds springs, (that have sagged a tad in the back), the ride height on my survivor '64 is still pretty close to the test car image...

 

Later,

 

Mike Swick

Edmonton, AB

----

 

image.thumb.jpeg.4d8c5bfe753d15a74b0a6b0caa4ff18e.jpeg.ee1c26f42468c95d2bb191ee02f3b882.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...