Yes it is, I'll always remember it from the movie Roadhouse!

Agreed! 👍 Artwork on wheels.

@@petestaint8312 Yes it is, even though I'm not a hidden headlights fan from a reliability standpoint.

@@bobhill3941 ya the one on Roadhouse was great, a later model though with the vacuum operated headlight doors

@@bobhill3941 it depends on system... The electric motor and torsion bars on the '66 and '67 Rivieras was flawless. The individual vacuum actuators for the Cougars and Toronados sucked. Then, the single vacuum actuators for the 70s Lincolns worked fine unless you had a leaky vacuum hose...

was it a reliable car?

Introduced just one year after the sleek rapid WILDCAT!

I never knew the 57 Fury existed until the movie Christine. An absolutely cherry car (with a grille instead of the vertical slats under the front bumper).

I think Elwood Engel deserves a mention, too.

@@LongIslandMopars as does Bob Bourke

I'd say yes to a '64 over a '63 primarily because of the transmission differences, not to mention the 425 engine becoming standard for '64. The '63 had that 1948 design Dynaflo that needed rebuilding every 40,000 miles. The '64 had a Superturbine 400, the first turbo hydramatic. The '63 and '64 engine crankshafts were also different because the rear of the 63 crank hade a huge hole to accommodate the huge stubby nose on the Dynaflow torque converter. Hence, you could put a '63 engine into a 64/5, but not the other way around.

Oh, I like that! 🙂

I fell in love with this car when it was introduced when I was 10. This and the 63 Grand Prix along with a neighbor's 62 all gold 409 62 Chevy Impala SS with gold interior with bucket seats, console, and spinners. Another neighbor had a beautiful 57 Plymouth Fury. Those were the cars that brought me to have a love of cars.

1963 was Detroit’s best sales year since 1955

I got one at the age of 18. Seen it in a museum. Had some money saved and got one. Its awesome.

however, the '63 and '64 tail lights and rear bumper were better looking than the '65s.

Indeed.

Don't forget the 66 Toronado

The 1965 Riviera Gran Sport is unreal starting with those which still exist!

Luv 63-65z😮one of, if not the best Looking Machine ever produced; 65 is the Prettiest/Sexiest of all Her Sister's ❤70' being the strongest. Gran Prix being her slutty Sister❤❤❤❤

1964 would be the first year of the Turbo 400.

@@rafaelfiallo4123 must have been a 63, my memory is foggy

was your car reliable throughout the years you owned it

I didn’t have it very long. But it was dependable while I had it.

Same words shall apply in 2064 and beyond

@@DontCryAboutIt Correction the dual carb setup came out in 64.

I had a 1963 Buick Riviera with the 4 barrel and 401 engine in it. That's how I got the car it's original state..

One of them for sure

Maybe tied with the Olds Tornado.

If only that Bel Air wagon had the 4 speed dual quad posi traction 409!

@@garyblanchard1084 Hi Gary...it took 6 more years before my dad surprised my mom (and the family: he was a heretofore ruthlessly practical mechanical engineer who always bought basic cars with cheap trim paired with one of the smallest engines) with a new completely loaded '68 T-Bird with the 4V 429....that car was a torque beast. From that point is was American luxury cars with the biggest engines....I thought I'd died and gone to Heaven.

Air conditioning ended the vent wing era. Some vent wings on pre war makes and models took up almost half of total side windows. A lot of bees wasps and hornets must have gotten inside going down the road on hot days!!!

@@garyblanchard1084 not exactly, a number of vehicles continued vent windows well into the 90s, well after air conditioning was standard on most vehicles.

riv was a real luxury car while the tbird was a glorified cheap car like the cougar

@@retrocompaq5212 Completely disagree with you on that one. As a previous owner of a '64 T-bird and current owner of 2 '66 T-birds AND a '68 Cougar, I have to say there is a world of difference and neither of those are glorified cheap cars. The Riviera is magnificent, but so are the Cougar and the Thunderbird in their respective classes. Why do we have to attack competing vehicles? Maybe if we didn't perpetuate that Ford vs GM vs Chrysler attitude, we would have more choices than just Asian or European cars.

The Thunderbird was built in the same Factory is the Lincoln Continental. It was not an upgraded cheap car ( at least not until 1977 when was lowered into a cougar class car)

​@@retrocompaq5212WHAT!!!???

You forgot about Studebaker Hawk

Chryslers work with Ghia did produce a lot of concepts of 4 seat sporty luxury cars, but Chrysler never put that concept into production, like Ford and Buick did. The 300 was a full size luxury car, with a high performance engine, on the same body as the New Yorker, with a Imperial front clip. Not very close to being a trend setting new class of vehicle. Great car, yes, but Apples and Oranges, for this discussion. The Dual Ghia and the English Bristol, and Jensen, all Chrysler powered, are a better argument, for your point, and the Dual Ghia, I believe, was built on a Dodge chassis.

I doubt they started in low. I have a 63 lesabre with the 401 and twin turbine drive as well. I got rid of the factory 2 barrel carb and went with a factory 4 barrel set up. In drive with the 2.78 open differential, I get a consistent 9 second 0-60 time. If you start in low and get it to keep traction it will actually shave off another 2+ seconds off the 0-60 time if you know when to shift back into drive. Those riviera's typically had 3.23 differential so even better.

@@kevbo2012 When you have a big engine and lots of carburetion(2-barrel on a 401?), starting in high gear ain't-a gonna give-a ya the fastest acceleration. The speed of acceleration is what it is all about. Keeping traction in a gear close to 2nd gear on a 3-speed automatic? With a tall final drive ratio, it would probably take skinny tires on a wet road to break traction. Heck, my '71 Ranchero with 15" wheels with 285 h.p. and a 3.0 diff. had trouble breaking traction in 1st gear of it's automatic.

@automatedelectronics6062 From 62 and 63 the 401 in the lesabre was standard with only a 2 barrel carb. 4 barrel on the lesabre would have been the power pack option from the factory that I later added. The twin turbine dynaflow is actually a cvt with an emergency low gear that you can manually select. In drive the 5 element torque converter does all the ratio changes from the max stall ratio of 3.40 down to 1 to 1. When the low range is selected, it kindof locks the torque converter into the 3.40 ratio and you also get the additional 1.82 from the low range on top of that making the acceleration more aggressive. With the 2.78 differential I found it best to shift back into drive around 45mph or the acceleration will start to slow down again. On a little bit of a side note you can also push start the car in low and use it for engine breaking down steep grades. Low in a dynaflow is not 1st gear like a normal automatic

@@kevbo2012 Why not install the 2-4 Bbl. option? The low gear ratio of 1.82 in a PowerGlide was normally found in light trucks or in high performance cars. When I used to build PowerGlides for racing, I would use the 1.82 gearset over the common 1.76. As the transmission was connected directly to the engine, there was no slippage. With a torque converter, the max torque multiplication starts from normal take-off. Once the stators star spinning, torque multiplication ends. The DynaFlow cheated with movable stator blades which would allow more slippage. They were opened or closed, no variable in-between. When they closed, this would cause a blip and torque would be slightly increased. The variable stators were controlled by a switch actuated by the position of the throttle linkage. The switch had 3 positions. With the throttle closed or slightly opened, the stator blades were in the torque multiplication position. During cruise throttle position, the blades were in the closed position, promoting the 2 halves of the torque converter the ability to be close to the same speed for better mileage. At full throttle, the switch would open the blades increasing slippage and allowing the engine to get to it's powerband much quicker. The theory behind having 2 stators was that they would sequentially start spinning and gave a longer torque multiplication range while also allowing a higher stall speed getting the engine into it's power sweet spot quicker. Sure, the DynaFlow could be considered a CVT, but because of the fluid coupling aspect, it could never reach a 1:1 ratio. Modern true CVT's will reach a true 1:1 ratio and will even go into an overdriven ratio. Yup. Most auto transmissions could be used to push-start a vehicle if they had a rear(output shaft-driven) rear pump. After 1965, most automatics didn't have rear pumps. This is one reason we only used 1962-65 PowerGlides for racing. The triple-turbine DynaFlow had no rear pump. You couldn't push-start. Right, the main reason for the "L" gear position was for engine-braking. The torque converter never came close to locking up. Actually, the vanes on the transmission side would be spinning faster than the ones on the engine side, making the engine rpm's to increased creating a load on the drivetrain. "L" was also very helpful for acceleration. Just like any transmission, you have to know the best time to upshift.

@automatedelectronics6062 If I could afford what an original 2x4 set is currently going for I definitely would but most of the time I just cruise around so I don't really need it. True not a perfect 1 to 1 but I do believe it was pretty close. The twin turbine dynaflow only had 2 positions on the stator. For the other position to work the throttle has to be pushed in all the way and happens at the same time the secondarys on the carb open up. It is a mechanical linkage. The super turbine transmission that came later was an electric switch by the carb correct? Either way I do think the dynaflow does get little but of a bad rap. The early ones were definitely bad but the later ones got better. I like to call the low range the cheat gear because it surprises the heck out of people when I do choose to use it. To be honest a lot of what I learned was just from reading the factory service manual that I have for the car.

Yeah, what's up with those unnecessary looking bends under the front footwells??

@@DanEBoyd my guess is to slow down the gases without having to go through a second set of mufflers... Free breathing.

The pipes are probably curved like that to clear the frame and floor pans. The small mufflers are resonators, and the single, main muffler is sideways between the rear axle and the fuel tank, similar to the early Camaro dual exhaust, with two inlets and two outlets.

@@joesmithjoesmith4284 I thought of that, because the first Toronado used that system (which to me negates the point of dual exhaust...) However, even with a magnifying glass I can only see two shorty mufflers by the diff and MAYbe a pair of resonators at the very rear (like the Gen 2.)

Those style Rivs were never convertibles

We never knew how good we had it honestly.

@denniswilson8013y friends 67 ranchero would disagree with you, thing had like 260,000 miles (turned over 100,000 twice) on the original 289 and still ran like a bat outta hell before he put a roller 302 in it. That 289 could not be killed. EDIT: wasn’t just CAFE standards that killed these cars, insurance companies played a big role in the demise of big V8 powered cars.

Not to mention Ralph Nader and his mindless raiders

I immediately Googled photos of the ‘62 Chevy II and frankly have no idea what “resemblance” you are seeing that I cannot.

@@Primus54 The Chevy II came about since Corvair was a sales flop compared to the Ford Falcon. And there is very little comparison between spartan economy and all out personal luxury. No AM/FM radio optional with Chevy II until 1969 when it morphed officially to Nova.

@@garyblanchard1084 Thanks for the info. I am aware of the history of the Chevy II. However my original reply to “nlpnt” remains unanswered… I cannot see the “resemblance” to the Riviera whatsoever.

I loved hidden headlights as a kid yet now seem a safety hazard. All drivers should drive with lights on day or night not to see yet be seen

All 1965 cars were death traps.