A 1970 home-built Riviera convertible got me wondering why one wasn’t built in 1963. There’d been a Thunderbird ragtop since day one, and they were big image-mobiles, if not exactly big sellers. By the early ’60s, the number of T-Bird convertibles already was in terminal decline, which probably explains why this Riviera rag-top wasn’t built. Still, it’s obvious that serious consideration was given to the idea. Here’s the very advanced–and finely-crafted–1963 Riviera one-off, shot in 1962 on the GM Design Center Patio.
This was not merely a fiberglass styling exercise. It was crafted from a steel body-in-white built by Fisher, and had a very crisply-fitting top that followed the coupe’s roof contours as closely as possible.
It also used a “scissors” top mechanism that allowed larger rear side windows. (It would reappear years later in GM’s full-size convertibles. The Riviera used a hard panel to cover the top when it was stowed. Very clean all the way.
Bill Mitchell was obviously hedging his bets: His Design Center Craftsmen also mocked up this “hatch top” (T-Top?) version.
Can you imagine how much more they, like all convertibles, would fetch now?
Another “coulda, shoulda, woulda” that has become GM’s M.O. throughout its history. Another wasted opportunity. Sadf.
Unfortunately for carmakers, Nostradamus isn’t in the auto industry.
Nobody in 1963 could forsee the personal-luxury car as a permanent niche. Even if they could, they’d have to sell the unimaginative bean-counters and then take a gamble. And it could go the other way…the Edsel debacle was fresh on everyone’s minds, as was the death of DeSoto and Studebaker-Packard circling the bowl.
Just getting the suits to SIGN OFF on such a revolutionary concept took doing…Ford almost lost the Mustang; and Lido had to personally involve Hank the Deuce to get it through. THINK of that…a car with essentially NO overhead; almost NO exclusive parts…remaking the body a PITTANCE, and press leaks having Young America salivating…and Lundy poised to say, NO!
Doubtless the situation was much the same in GM’s beehive…where they believed in never being first in anything. The Riv was a gamble; and the company was limiting its exposure.
THINK of that…a car with essentially NO overhead; almost NO exclusive parts…remaking the body a PITTANCE
That grossly understates what goes into making a new car, even though the suspension and drivetrain was shared with the Falcon. Which is exactly what it shared with the Falcon. It needed essentially a whole new unibody to be designed, engineered and tooled up; it’s not like the Mustang shared hard points with the Falcon. The whole passenger compartment sat much further back, it was lower, totally different proportions, etc…Certainly, the design/engineering got a head start by not starting totally from scratch, but it was still a considerable investment. Almost every part of the body and interior were new. And then a new car has to be marketed aggressively.
What you describe would apply well to the Barracuda, but not so well to the Mustang. And the extra investment and effort and risk taken by Ford paid off, compared to the Chrysler’s quick and cheap Valiant with a fish bowl grafted on. How well did that go over?
FWIW, the Riviera was heavily based on the big Buicks, sharing most of the underpinnings (and dashboard) with them. On the other hand, the T-Bird was a much more unique car, with its own unibody. It shared almost nothing with the big Fords, except for drive train and such. Its interior and dash were totally unique. AS you said, GM was playing it safe with the Riviera.
Paul is correct. The Mustang represented a significant investment for Ford because it wasn’t just a reskinning of the Falcon. For example, I recall reading somewhere that the Mustang’s reduced body tuck under required expensive changes in assembly line design.
In contrast, the 1967-69 Barracuda was much more similar to its sister Valiant than the original Mustang was to the !964-65 Falcon. The Barracuda used the same wheelbase, cowl, windshield, inner-door structure, etc. Not surprisingly, the Barracuda looked less distinctive than other pony cars of the time.
Ford was clearly more willing to take risks on niche cars, but it did pay some attention to economies of scale. The 1961-66 Thunderbird shared its platform and assembly plant with the Lincoln Continental, and the 1970 Mustang was the donor platform for the Maverick — which ultimately morphed into the Granada.
Another one who missed an opportunity was AMC with the help of Budd. Budd suggested the idea of a “XT-Bird” and later to AMC who renamed it the Rambler XR-400 http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1962-budd-XR400-sports-convertible.htm Another opportunity arise with the Tarpon but Roy Abernathy, who succeded to Georges Romney at the head of AMC tells the guys to make it on the Classic platform instead of the Rambler American.
Maverick/Granada were, like earlier Mustangs, based on the Falcon chassis.
I believe Iacocca quoted the price for the Mustang’s development (possibly including marketing) at $75 million, although I’ve seen other estimates that put the mechanical development and tooling at more like $40 million. That wasn’t a vast amount for Detroit either way, but it wasn’t negligible.
The Thunderbird and ’61-’66 Continental didn’t share as much as, say, the rival GM E-bodies. The big thing the T-Bird and Continental DID share was the cowl, which since they were unitized, was a big element of their structure and undoubtedly determined a lot of their other hardpoints, even if the rest of the structure wasn’t necessarily the same.
“Mustang’s reduced body tuck under”
That should be “increased body tuck under”
Mustang had more tuck under than any other Ford product at the time (see the panel behind the rear wheel opening). It needed a waiver from Ford’s manufacturability rules on tuck-under.
Hmmm…the point is taken; but the facts remain. Ed Lundy and Iacocca forged a working friendship from the Mustang affair…because the car returned so much profit to the company from such a small investment. I no longer recall the exact amount, but David Halberstam went into detail in his book The Reckoning.
Although the unibody had to be fabricated pretty-much “from scratch” many, many parts remain shared with the Falcon. One of the more mundane that stand out, was the windshield-wiper assembly; the unique two-direct arms not parallel setup that first saw daylight with the Falcon.
Okay, a small item, but illustrative. Much of the less-glamourous stuff could be used directly from Falcon to Mustang…I recall a friend of my brother, with a 1966…a pedal parking brake.
That said, I concede I understated the case…to illustrate the point.
I did not know this prototype had a scissor top, perhaps that was the hold up, since a production inward folding top didn’t show up in a production GM car until 1971, one of the benefits of the scissor top was that you could have the same width rear seat as in a closed car.
Who knows what held it up, perhaps they didn’t want to raid their own Wildcat and 224 convertible sales? Maybe the price point would have put it Cadillac territory? Remember also, senior management, especially at the high end divisions at GM were for the most part, very conservative dudes,
I’ll put my money on GM thinking that the Riv would flop. If you have a chance to get intimate with an early Riv you may understand.