Regular Curbsider Christian (cjcz92) captured this Buick Century and posted it to the Cohort. I’ve seen more than my fair share of A-Bodies, their sturdy mechanicals and often elderly ownership base ensuring their continued presence on North America’s roads. But I’ve never seen a Century this old, Christian’s photographed example being either a 1982 or 1983 base model Century Custom.
I’ve criticized later Century and Ciera models in the past, but these early models are respectable vehicles. The most egregious reliability and durability issues of the X-Body had been taken care of and the styling was handsome. Front-wheel-drive was fast taking over the automotive landscape and these and the Chrysler K-Car, among others, helped introduce the drive layout to conservative domestic car buyers who quickly saw its advantages. And while a Honda Accord may have been a more refined piece of machinery, Honda dealers were renowned for charging above sticker and an Accord sedan offered a little less in the way of shoulder room. Besides, the Century offered a wagon body style and an optional V6, two things the Accord did without for several years. It also offered a diesel V6 and wire-wheel covers but Honda never went down that road…
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1982-90 Chevrolet Celebrity
CC Capsule: Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera – Official Car Of The Chelsea Projects
Compared to the X cars this was a great improvement. The styling was attractive, shave the harsh corners off the X cars. As mentioned, the biggest mechanical problems had been addressed. I especially like the front end styling and the tail lamps. I remember Car and Driver had some photos from the New York auto show and they were quite impressed by the styling.
I’m with you, Jose – the Century was my favorite-looking of the four, in their initial ’82 guise. They only got better-looking…up until the ’88 “aero” restyle. The full-width taillamps with the forward-slanting front end (for ’86?) was the best of this series, IMO.
I had a shark-nose Century…what a great car. The only issue I had was finding the little tiny rectangular sealed beam headlamps…nobody seemed to stock them. Was GM the only company to use them? I must be getting old…I THINK the car was an ’88 model but I really don’t recall.
Fully agree, the ’86 Century was peak (FWD) A-body. Or, peak A-body sedan at least. The best coupe was the late 80’s/early 90’s Cutlass Ciera, after they fixed the roofline.
I would think you would like the Century 2-door, with the better roofline.
Same roofline as the Olds, as far as I can tell. And while I do like the full-width tails, I think the “smoothed out” Century front clip lost something in the translation.
The added length on the front and rear did a good job of conveying that the Century was a true mid size car. This was quite a feat to pull off as the colonades were only 5 years in the past in 1982
Yawn. I am still fatigued from the sheer numbers of these that were on the road for what seemed like decades around here. I still see one occasionally, though usually not this old. They have a lot to recommend them, but I just have never been able to get past the dull-factor. I had a neighbor who bought a new 86 model and parked it on the street across from my house, so I got to look at it every day.
This one seems to be sitting high in the rear. Air shocks maybe?
Perhaps the front is sagging or there are rear new suspension components on this Century.
I have such mixed feelings about these A bodies. Just as outlined in the comments on yesterday’s ’79 Grand Prix, they could be optioned really nicely or they could be just miserable and dismal. Early in the A-body saga there were some pretty cool versions, like the Brougham coupes, the Eurosports, the International Series, the STE, the GT’s, and the list goes on. But then there were the ones like this one. I just get sad when I see a low spec A body from the early years.
It’s a personal drama, I know, but I just can’t let it go. Back in ’82 our neighbors and close family friends bought a new ’82 Pontiac 6000. It was navy blue inside and out, had the awful 4 cylinder (was there an Iron Duke in the early A Bodies? It sure sounded like one), vinyl interior, cheap bench seats front and rear, and literally nothing in the way of creature comforts but an AM/FM radio and air conditioning. This was the car that replaced a 1974 Coupe de Ville that had carried all 6 of us kids in three close knit families to swim team practices, CCD classes, etc at least once a week since we’d moved to that neighborhood. To add insult to injury, that Cadillac was worth nothing as a trade, so it sat unused in a side driveway for years, being taunted by that crap-tastic Pontiac while it rusted away. I hated and resented that 6000 like I have rarely hated or resented any non-mammal before or since. Its owner and primary driver, whose husband had foisted it upon her due to his ability to pay cash for it in the face of upcoming college tuition for two daughters, was quoted as saying at the dealership, “Well, it just doesn’t drive like my Cadillac.” To which the salesman replied, “Nothing ever will drive like that Cadillac, lady”.
I’ve related this story several times here, I think, and it still makes me sad. One day maybe I’ll get over my violent fury whenever I see a minimally optioned early A-Body sedan. But not yet. No, Not Yet.
Had two of them: Back in 1986 after my mother’s death, my father forced (yeah, forced) me to swap him my mildly hopped up ’82 Escort GT for mom’s ’86 Century Estate Wagon. All the trimmings that made me embarrassed at age 36 to be seen in the car: red velour interior, fake wood, fake wire wheels. V-6 with the four speed automatic. Had it for four years, and while it was an excellent reliable car, I always called it mom’s last shot to humiliate me. And it caused a lot of rough sledding with dad when I was finally able to afford trading it in.
Then after dad’s death I ended up with another ’86, this time a four door sedan, bare bones model (three speed auto with the Iron Duke), identical to the pictured car – which I enjoyed. Probably because of the complete lack of brougham-ish pretentiousness. Had it for a year, then traded it in one a Dodge Daytona.
All in all, wonderful cars. One of the things GM got right during this time period.
These ultra-boxy ’82-’84 models are such an instant reminder of childhood – they were such ubiquitous beaters in the 1990s, and they all seemed to be in this exact brown color for an extra dose of “crappy old car” look. For some reason they disappeared very quickly, and few survived into the 2000s. Carbureted engines, poor rustproofing (the bodies on these dissolved like toilet paper when exposed to road salt), and early-run teething issues are all I can chalk that up to… because the newer “aero” models are nearly unkillable and I still see multiple examples every day.
This shot looks like the opening scene from Clerks 2, although I think that one was a Ciera.
Our 82 Celebrity rusted ridiculously in Ohio. Fortunately it was already the color of rust so it was still a “40 footer” (looked OK from 40 feet but when you got up close to it… “shudder”)
The A bodies were great cars for their time, and one of GMs better efforts. Nice handling, well laid out, decent size and efficient in every way. They were much better than Ford or Chrysler competitors, until the Taurus appeared.
My dad had a base Ciera with V6, rallye wheels a/c and the handling package. It was a really decent car to drive, and nothing ever went wrong. Zero repairs.
Some friends had Centurys and Cieras with base suspension that was too soft and floppy. But their pillowy Brougham interiors added upmarket luxury to blunt the indignity of driving a compact fwd sedan.
Their cars accumulated a lot of trouble free miles. One friend accumulated 426000 km and still going strong. I would welcome a clean low mile version today.
GM built these with all sorts of weird combinations of options…my then-father in law had a Ciera with a big V6, 4 speed auto, wire wheel covers, luggage rack, power windows, manual locks, no tilt, rear defrost, AM/FM with no cassette, power recliners only on both sides, otherwise manual seats…it was flaky as hell. My Century had power locks but manual windows, all manual seats, tilt but no rear defrost, AM/FM cassette. Who checked the option boxes on these cars? My ’92 Roadmaster was a stripped down basic car with a full analog instrument package?!? There’s something to be said for standardized equipment packages…at least you know what to expect on an Accord EX.
It must have been a nightmare for dealers to try to figure out what to stock. However, I much prefer it to Honda’s “you have to buy all this other crap nobody needs if you want this single desirable feature worth about $100” package pricing.
In 2008 an F-150 could be ordered in over a billion combinations. In 2009 they pared that down to “just” 10 million. What kind of consumer doesn’t like choices in such a major purchase?
I guess I’ll be the voice of dissent in this one. These look as dated on the roads today as I imagine 30s cars must have in the 50s-60s. The skinny tires, tinny wheel covers, narrow tracks, total lack of tumblehome, acres of the cheapest looking chrome ever to grace cars before or since, and that all to visible low hanging rusty girder of a rear axle. These A bodies had the stance and presence of a shopping cart.
Rear axle is definitely one of those things on an X or A body that once you see it, you can’t un-see it. It looks like it was designed for an oxcart and later adapted for automotive use.
These were about the boxiest thing on the road when they debuted in ’82. As others have said the corners got rounded off along the way, but as with the J-bodies, the windshields gave them away. They are great appliances for the masses, but here in the rust belt they have alarming corrosion issues with subframes and (especially) rear axles, which leads to their untimely demise. The bodies usually went first though, as many went for years looking like Swiss cheese.
As with many 80s GM cars, you could equip them however you wanted. My aunt and uncle had a 1982 6000, a 1987 Century and a 1991 Ciera over the years. The 6000 had pillowed velour, a vinyl roof and power everything, more luxurious than most Cadillacs. The Century had a straight bench and manual everything, and the Ciera was in between. It always seemed to me that you picked your preferred styling details (or probably more often, dealership), and optioned it however you wanted, as you could basically get anything in every brand. I don’t think the cost differed that much between similarly equipped models regardless of brand, either.
These early versions certainly look dated, but they’re very much a product of their era. It’s the rarity that strikes me though; almost all of these early ones are long gone while their late-run neighbors are practically unkillable.
About 5 years ago I spotted a very early 6000 that had to be from the first year or two of production. That one shocked me, especially given that the 6000 was unquestionably the poorest seller of the 4 platform mates…however I only got two photos, neither of which turned out well. Still, I haven’t seen another anywhere near that old since.
Good article and nice enough looking car. While I have not seen a road going Century in a few days I saw a Cutlass Cierra and a reasonably rare Celebrity in Tillamook a few days ago.
This is sort of the GM version of the Mustang. They managed to create something in a higher-tier market with a completely different body and mechanically improved enough that no potential buyer ever suspected it had begun life as a miserable Citation X-body. Even the other division’s versions (Celebrity, Ciera, 6000) concealed those nasty roots well. But I would imagine the Buick had the healthiest profit margin and was certainly one of Roger Smith’s Greatest Hits.
In fact, it’s kind of the anti-Cimarron and ironic that the Century is of the same vintage. If GM had spent the same money that went to make a Buick Century out of a Chevy Citation on a Cavalier to make the Cimarron, things might have turned out quite a bit differently for the Cadillac.
I agree, particularly with the latter. I have no great fondness for these cars, but about the worst I can say about them as a group is that they tended to suffer the usual ’80s Detroit syndrome of bargain basement materials. Paying a little extra for higher-quality trim and materials doesn’t sound like a bad deal, really.
Concerning the quality of materials and trim (or how bad it used to be on domestic products, in general), I vividly recall Lee Iacocca once whining to congress about how it wasn’t enough that Pacific Rim manufacturers were assembling vehicles in the US. His contention was the ‘parts’ they were using were all still being imported, which continued to keep the domestics at a cost disadvantage. IIRC, it wasn’t too much later that the monroney stickers began having a percentage listing of the origin of the vehicle’s parts content.
The irony is that while the Japanese ‘did’ actually start to have some parts made in the US for their US-built vehicles (for a while, anyway), the tables turned rather quickly and it was eventually the ‘domestics’ who began importing a majority of their parts for vehicle assembly. It seemed to be a clear-cut example of “If you can’t beat them, join them”.
I’ve said this before, but part of my frustration with materials in domestic cars of the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s is not necessarily the quality of the materials, but the way the interior design often accentuated the cheapness. I had a 1985 Accord LX for many years and the hard, grainy gray plastic dash and gray upholstery weren’t what I’d call luxurious, but the dash design was such that you weren’t staring at big acres of cheap plastic or awful wood appliqué as was the case in a lot of domestics of that era. It wasn’t particularly lavish, but it was thoughtfully designed and generally easy to live with. Having spent a fair amount of time in some rather stripped-out Civics of the same vintage, the difference wasn’t that dramatic. Fewer convenience features, but the same basic deal.
I think contemporary American cars really suffered from the Detroit mentality that smaller, cheaper model must be as undesirable as possible to encourage upselling. The advantage of something like an Accord or even like a Rabbit/Golf wasn’t so much that they were such brilliant designs, but just that even in basic trim, they felt like they’d been designed as something somebody might actually want to buy on purpose rather than as placeholders to fill out a lineup or lure someone into buying a Caprice. You paid extra for that — an Accord of this vintage wasn’t exactly cheap — but you could also feel the difference.
As a former 1987 Accord owner, your post motivated me to look like what the Century dashboard looked like back then. And I found a CC COAL:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1984-buick-century-and-1981-skylark-the-apple-doesnt-fall-far-from-the-tree/
It couldn’t be more night-and-day. The Buick dashboard could have been found in a car from ten years earlier and is very upright and in-your-face. Well, you want to get into someone’s face, the product better be good, and the Buick’s wasn’t.
Back then, you could deduce a lot about an interior from a “button test”. The Accord had big buttons which activated smoothly and clicked with confidence. GM cars were full of wiggly tiny little buttons and knobs that wobbled. You could tell that if they cheeped out on the human-interface element, they probably really cheeped it out everywhere else.
I do know the Buick Century and Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera versions of the FWD A-body used the carbureted Buick 3.0 liter V6 from 1982-85. And they could have the big 3.8 litre injected V6 from about 1984-85 to about 1988. I wonder if the 3.0 engines were any good. I bet these cars are the first of the Roger Smith specials.
The 3.0 in my ’83 Century was certainly no good. No power, sucked gas down like nobody’s business and then died at 80k miles, despite the car being driven by the proverbial little old lady from new before coming into my possession at around 65k miles. I’ve seen similar stories about the 3.0 engine elsewhere online.
Agreed. My first car was an ’83 Century with the 3.0. Hand-me-down from Pops. Gutless, horrible mileage. Carborator, water pump, power steering all shot by 95k. Engine caught fire too.
And the Tech 4 was throttle body injected from the first A Bodies. 82 for the X Bodies as well.
IIRC the Iron Duke was no longer referred to as such after TBI was added.
In my limited experience, the 3300 Buick was the engine to get in an A-body – works good, lots of power, and great gas mileage to boot.
My Dad had the Cutlass Ciera version of the car. Early one morning, Dad noticed the car had disappeared from the driveway. The car was found several days latter sans the 4 cylinder engine with the original tires and wheels still attached.
To this day, I could not understand why anyone would steal a car for a 4 cylinder Tech IV (aka Iron Duke) engine.
I’ve always had mixed feelings about the front-wheel-drive A-cars. They were roomy, compact, fuel-efficient and cleanly styled, although GM probably shouldn’t have bothered with the two-door sedans. But the Buick and Oldsmobile versions hung around for far too long, and played a key role in saddling both divisions with the reputation as the favored brands of senior citizens.
By the early 1990s, both the Century and the Ciera had evolved into the Dodge Dart and Plymouth Valiant of their era. The Valiant and Dart were solid, practical cars, and but not too many people I knew aspired to own one. The Century and Ciera sold well, but by the mid-1990s, both Oldsmobile and Buick were trying to once again become aspirational cars – at least for people under the age of 55.
The biggest problem with the A body is that they continued to build it until 1996. GM would be remembered a lot more favorably if they discontinued the coupes in ’88 when the GM-10s arrived, and the sedans in 1990 for the same. GM’s greatest sins were always building things too long. Always.
They finally stopped making W-Body recently, but those cars would hang around just like those A-Bodies did for the upcoming decades.
That’s true with the W-body, but it was much less apparent in that case. If you park a 1988, say, Cutlass Supreme (or a 1990 Lumina Sedan) next to a 2016 Impala Limited (last production W-body), I’d argue you’d be hard pressed to find anything visually identical between them. On the other hand, if you parked a 1982 Century next to a 1996 Century, it’s immediately apparent that only the front and rear clips and rear window have changed.
That’s an ’83. The front corner light cover is white on the ’82.
My parents bought a Regal right before the ’82 Century came out and the Century was far more modern. It was a good design for its time.
I previously owned 4 different A bodies – all wagons. 1984 Celebrity 4 banger & 3 Buick Century’s – 89,91 & 93 all with the 3300. All of them went well over 100K miles with little trouble.
Absolutely the most useful vehicles I have ever owned. Can haul 8 people in a pinch, fits well in the garage, good MPG, rear seats fold flat.
I’ve owned two – an ’83 Century coupe and a ’96 Cierra wagon. Both had their positives, but at the end of the day they were still crappy cars, particularly the Buick. Even the Cierra ended up being junky enough to drive me away from GM products, and American cars in general, permanently. Now I strictly buy Hondas or Toyotas.
An 84 Olds Ciera in brown started my interest in GM: my Father’s Oldsmobile. It was quiet, roomy, well trimmed, the visibility would be a revelation to someone driving today’s machinery. 4 cylinder Iron Duke/Tech4.
It blew two head gaskets, the first at about 100,000 miles and later after being given to my brother, a second one. Bro and family tortured the thing to death, unfortunately.
The headliners were guaranteed to sag on these. Plus “morning sickness” of the steering rack was widespread.. The torque converter switch that would result in the feel of coming to a stop with a manual still in high gear: lots of jerking and bucking was a common problem.
I bought the original, despite all the bad press: an 84 Citation 2 door notchback I liked my Dad’s Ciera so much. Pretty car: champagne metallic with dark brown lower body, mag wheels. All the virtues of the A Body with shorter length. Run hard by the time I got it at 80,000 miles.
I see these cars nearly every day in Albuquerque. Rusty? No way! Dented and faded? Almost always! My next door neighbors Century Wagon, however, looks and runs great to this day.
The pictured car is an ’83. Brushed aluminum between the taillights instead of body-color.
I had an ’82 as my first car. Limited trim, two tone rosewood (just like in the sales flyer, of which I have a copy.) 3.0L V6 and the TH125C transmission, color matched velour interior.
Dad saw it for sale in the paper at a local Chevy/Olds dealer for a very low price ($1000 in early 1990.) The low price was because the dealer thought the transmission was dying. But when we test drove it, it ran fine. Turned out it was just the torque converter clutch, which was an issue in the TH125C. The shop disconnected it to make the car run right, but it had been advertised at the low price, so that’s what Dad and I paid for it. Went 50/50 on the money, a year later I bought out his share.
It was a really nice car. Lots of memories, including driving friends around at college. I had it for almost four years, mostly reliable, but the V6 was junk and threw a rod one day in early ’92 with 115K on the clock. Dad paid to put a junkyard motor in it and that lasted me two years until I traded it off. I guess oddly enough the Iron Duke four, crap as it was, was probably the more reliable choice.
I don’t think I’ll ever see one in the metal again. It’s hard enough finding pictures of them. There can’t be more than a few hundred ’82s left on the road anymore.
I had a 90 Celebrity wagon, 93 Cera and 93 Century wagon. Best cars I have ever owned. The 3.3 never dies, even when you wish it would!