(first posted 12/20/2015) Brendan’s recent post on the second generation of the FWD Buick Century generated a surprising amount of spirited discussion for such a sleepy car. So how does our perspective today on this Buick, as well as our assessment of its competitors, compare with the reviews these cars received when they were first introduced? Let’s take a look at the Consumer Guide Auto Series from 1997 to see what they had to say.
Consumer Guide offered straightforward, relatively unbiased feedback on new cars to assist normal consumers with their everyday transportation needs. The Consumer Guide staff road tested most of the new cars available on the market, and also looked at relevant real world data on reliability, durability and total cost of ownership in developing their rankings. They did not accept advertising and for the most part sourced their cars from dealers rather than using manufacturer-prepped vehicles. Also, unlike the car enthusiast magazines who emphasized performance and handling more highly than the average consumer would, Consumer guide focused more on how the cars would meet the buyer’s requirements for mundane daily use.
Consumer Guide also put together lists of cars that would likely be crossed-shopped for each model, helping consumers to compare competing products. They rated cars based on 16 criteria including performance, accommodations, workmanship and value. In their Auto Test Annual 1997 Edition, they drove the new Century at a press preview, and based their preliminary rankings on that car.
The editors felt the car was well updated (finally, after 15 model years!), though not class leading. Performance was adequate, but the overall feel of the car was very, very soft. For an all-new car, it was very old-school. CG noted that it came across as a less expensive LeSabre competitor. With a base price of $17,845 ($26,388 adjusted for today’s prices), the Century Custom handily undercut the LeSabre Custom, which was priced at $22,015 ($32,554 adjusted). That $4,170 ($6,166 adjusted) savings was a boon for the buyer, but bad for GM’s bottom line.
So then, how did the new Century stack up against some of the key competitors listed by CG. Let’s look to their extensive Auto Test results to see the reviews, starting with the bargain-priced mid sized car from sister division Chevrolet, which was also newly updated that year.
The Malibu was based on the tried-and-true N-body platform, compared with the circa-1988 model year W-body platform used by the updated Century. Dimensionally, however, they were pretty close, with the Buick being a bit longer, wider and heavier, though both cars received the same rankings for interior accommodations. According to the CG test scores compiled by the editors, the Malibu topped the Century by two points, and the write-up on the Malibu was pretty positive. Also in the Malibu’s favor was aggressively low pricing for a mid size car, with the base Malibu going out the door for $15,470 ($22,875 adjusted), while the V6 equipped LS model, running the same GM corporate 3.1 OHV V6 as the Century, cost $18,190 ($26,898 adjusted). So, two different-but-the-same mid size sedans from two different divisions, targeting the same mid size value shoppers for essentially the same V6 price. Way to go GM!
Over at the rejuvenated Chrysler Corporation, the Cirrus was entering its 4th model year but was still receiving accolades. The Chrysler sedan was noted for its striking cab forward design and roomy interior, and got some points knocked off for lack of refinement is some areas. Still, it was a Recommended Buy and well priced at $18,160 ($26,854 adjusted), and an additional $800 ($1,183 adjusted) got you a 2.5L V6.
Perhaps in response to the dramatically styled Chrysler LH cars introduced for model year 1992, Ford felt they needed to do something really wild for their Taurus redesign. The “ovoid wonder,” aka the 1996 generation Ford Taurus, was the result.
The 1997 Taurus was unchanged for its second year on the market, and was well liked by Consumer Guide (they made no mention of the controversial styling). It earned the coveted Best Buy rating, and was generally seen to be a modern, fun-to-drive sedan. The 3.0L OHV V6 didn’t do the Ford any favors, as it was seen as coarse and unrefined, but ranked on par with GM’s similarly old-school 3.1L OVH V6. The Taurus G model stickered for $17,995 ($26,609 adjusted), before discounts, and Ford was pushing aggressively in 1997 to keep the Taurus at the top of the sales charts.
The 1997 Honda Accord was in the final year of its circa-1994 generation (note: Honda had offered 4 generations of Accord during the 15 years of unchanged Century production, and an all-new Accord was set to arrive for 1998). The Accord was awarded CG’s Best Buy, and was praised for its refinement, handling, efficiency and thoughtful design. Pricing was on the premium side for the segment, with 2.2L OHC 4-cylinder automatic LX sedans selling for $18,990 ($28,081 adjusted), while the 2.7L OHC V6 automatic LX was $22,500 ($33,271 adjusted). Still, given Honda’s traditionally strong resale value, the total cost of ownership was quite competitive.
Honda’s arch-rival, the Toyota Camry, was all-new for 1997 and in typical Toyota fashion was thoroughly updated and improved (Note: this was the 4th all-new Camry to hit the market since the FWD Century debuted in 1982). CG was impressed with the new design, calling it a model of refinement and awarding it a Best Buy rating. While the Accord tended to feel a bit sportier, the Camry seemed very much geared for traditional American tastes, with a soft ride, roomy interior and benign handling—just the ticket for converting domestic buyers. All this goodness didn’t come cheap, as the 2.2L OHC 4-cylinder automatic Camry LE cost $19,868 ($29,379 adjusted), while ordering the 3.0L OHC V6 automatic LE would set a buyer back $22,168 ($32,780 adjusted). However, like the Honda, the Toyota offered stellar resale value and rock solid reliability, making the ownership proposition pretty compelling over the longer-term.
As the 1997 mid size segment buyer moved up the price ladder into the range of the Camry V6, even more model choices became available, including from GM. While Consumer Guide did not conduct a road test of the Century’s more-expensive sister car, the Regal, it did evaluate the revamped W-body offering from Oldsmobile, the newly named Intrigue.
At this point, Oldsmobile had finally awakened to the massive exodus to the imports that the brand had endured (it only took them about 10 years to figure it out), so the updated Olds was tuned and positioned to attract import intenders. For the press preview where Consumer Guide tested the car, Olds even offered up the Nissan Maxima and Toyota Camry V6 for comparison purposes. CG’s editors were favorably impressed, as this was arguably the best of the updated W-body cars. While it carried the same corporate 3.8L OHV V6 that powered countless GM cars, the styling and driving feel were a positive step in a more contemporary and relevant direction.
The problem was, after a catastrophic decade for Oldsmobile, the brand had become pretty toxic for anyone who wasn’t an extremely loyal GM fan. The other challenge for the Intrigue was the plethora of similar sedans in Oldsmobile showrooms. For midsize cars, the buyer had to pick between the new V6 Intrigue for $20,700 ($30,610 adjusted) and the new V6 Cutlass for $17,325 (S25,619 adjusted). Alternately, there were full size cars, the 88 and the Aurora, which were dimensionally very close to the Intrigue. An 88 was $22,595 ($33,412 adjusted) with the same 3.8 V6 as the Intrigue. The luxury-class Aurora, which set the styling tone for the Intrigue, cost a whopping $35,735 ($52,842 adjusted). Sure, the Aurora had a V8, but less room inside than the “smaller” Intrigue. Which one would a befuddled Olds buyer pick—”old-school” Cutlass and 88, or “newfangled” Intrigue and Aurora? The answer, “none of the above,” would come a mere 3 years later in December 2000, when GM announced that it was shuttering the Oldsmobile Division.
Plus, by this time, the import competition was quite fierce and well established, both in the volume segments as well as in the booming near-luxury segment. The Nissan Maxima, like the car Olds had used in its press preview as a comparison for the Intrigue, was more than halfway through its 4th generation, yet Consumer Guide was still a fan.
CG’s editors labeled the Maxima a Budget Buy, as it offered the performance and amenities of more expensive cars for a very fair price. A Maxima GXE with the 3.0L DOHC V6 and automatic stickered for $23,249 ($34,379 adjusted). So for a bit more money than a mainstream sedan like the Toyota Camry, Nissan offered a desirable step up in luxury and performance. Funny, wasn’t that the strategy that the upper-middle domestic nameplates (Oldsmobile, Mercury, Buick) had deployed so successfully and profitably for so many years?
Therein lies my biggest issue with the 1997 Buick Century. By the 1990s, it was clear that the heart of the car buying market—the Baby Boomers—was moving upmarket and readily paying for more comfort and luxury, which of course had been Buick’s traditional sweet spot. But where was Buick? Offering the blandtastic Century to Ma and Pa Kettle for a bargain basement price. To this day, the lunacy of that move haunts GM, and we’re still seeing weak U.S. sales and lame, defensive brand advertising (“this isn’t your grandma’s Buick”) as a result. Plus, with cars like the 1997 Malibu, GM had more than enough offerings to appeal to the value conscious “Buy American” crowd.
But never fear, a company did take advantage of the trend for premium mid sized cars from an upscale brand and fielded a real winner. Priced at $29,900 ($44,214 adjusted) and both profitable and popular, there was a sedan that effectively cloaked corporate components from a lower priced sibling into a smooth, luxurious package. Had GM been smart, it would have been a Buick Century, but instead it was this car:
So there you have it: the perfect Best Buy for prosperous middle-aged Americans with “quiet” tastes seeking a step up in luxury and brand image. This type of car buyer had existed for decades (Baby Boomers being no different, despite their protests to the contrary) and represented a rich, long-term market well worth tapping into, which made gobs of money through the years for General Motors. But for 1997, the conservative, quick, comfortable premium-priced cars that used to be personified by Buick were instead on offer from the GM of Japan. Why, then, would you rather have a Buick, when the relentless pursuit of perfection beckoned?
Ugh… The Official Car of Mediocrity.
Like typical 90’s GM, if we can’t beat the Japanese let’s join em OR look like them.
This gen Century always reminds me of a granny version of the Mazda Millenia.
1995 Millenia, 1997 Century… You do the math.
* You forgot the Millenia and 626 as other competitors.
There’s a definite resemblance, but the Millenia is a good-looking car since it gets the details right. The Century is a forgettable, if inoffensive, appliance because it ignores the details.
I am a little Centuried out as I prefer the A Body version, but the picture of the red one in front of the fall colors is great.
My pick of the bunch would’ve been an Accord wagon with the 5-speed stick.
But yeah, Buick was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Blame wave after wave of bean counters at the top of GM who thought only in terms of the highest volume at lowest cost per unit, never drove competitors’ cars beyond Ford and Chrysler, and didn’t realize their Fisher-Price interiors weren’t cutting it in “premium” products anymore.
For the life of me, I don’t understand all the noxious vitriol surrounding the Century. Why on earth are we knocking this car for doing exactly what it was intended to do? Despite the rhetoric, the Century’s main mission was to appeal to elderly buyers by embracing traditional virtues. This is why it had a bench seat, simple controls, large font instrumentation sans tachometer, a, soft and cosseting ride, and was as quiet as a tomb. The Century wasn’t a perfect car, but most of the glaring shortcomings for which it can rightly be criticized were shared throughout the W-body range, mainly questionable materials and build quality, and woeful space efficiency. It always boggled my mind how a car 194 inches long could have such a cramped backseat.
The irony here is that as much as the Century is mocked, I think it actually possessed the attributes the market wants within this class. Let’s face it, there’s a wide chasm between what people say they want, and what they actually desire, and often they are unaware of this, and will even deny said contradictions once pointed out.
As evidence, I present for you exhibit A, the 2002-06 Toyota Camry. I will never forget the first time I checked out my mother’s ’04 Camry LE, which replaced the 91 DX Wagon I learned to drive on, which was a superb car, but very much in the Japanese idiom. First thing I noticed was that the car was extremely roomy inside for its size, possessing the space efficiency the W-bodies lacked, especially in the rear, which could almost swallow three human beings. Then I opened the driver’s door, and was confronted by a soft, formless bucket seat wrapped in a sumptuous cloth. I twisted the key and took it out for a spin. It was extremely quiet, had a velvety ride, adequate power, and a spongy brake pedal. The Camry was also easy and intuitive to drive. Within five minutes I felt right at home.
That Camry was and remains a marvelous car, but I couldn’t help thinking that it was simply a Buick Century repackaged for people who would be happy in a Buick, (and may not realize this) but would never be caught dead driving a Buick. And that appears to be exactly what that Camry has become – and bravo to Toyota for figuring out the magic formula.
I can’t speak on the behalf of others, but in the article I wrote, my main criticisms of the Century were not of its “traditional virtues” you speak of but of its material quality and lack of changes made over its lengthy run. Just as you mention, I highlighted the fact that it succeeded in its main mission and buyers liked it.
But what I still find fault with is the fact that it was not consistently improved over its run. I’m not saying it needed a radical overhaul, but GM at least could of upgraded its interior and comfort/convenience/safety features in addition to a more refined powertrain.
The fact that the Century was so successful, making GM a fat profit, yet they gave it no love is what I find so crazy.
And yes, your take on the Camry is spot on. The main difference with the Camry and Century, is Toyota updates it every few years, keeping it competitive.
We’re knocking this car for its mission, not for failing to live up to its mission. Buick used to be a premium mid-size car, like the ES300. Then GM’s muddled marketing after the collapse of the Sloan ladder seemed to decree that every division save Cadillac needed to chase every point in the market and every buyer, which resulted in bargain-basement Buicks undercutting the price of upper-rung Chevys. A marketing blunderbuss, if you will–fire a bunch of junk in the general direction of your buyer and hope something hits them.
I must have missed how this became the ONLY Buick and there wasn’t a range of cars that ran from this to the Park Avenue.
Very interesting to read all these reviews! Thanks for sharing this!
Eric,
Do you suppose some of the vitriol aimed at the Century might be because many CC readers view the 97 Century as just adequate? A few of it’s competitors were more expensive, yet folks gladly paid more for a car they didn’t see as merely adequate.
When I read the original articles appearing here, I got to wondering: if the Century was a “reasonably attractive” proposition in 1997….what happened by 2002 when ALL the Century’s competition had been updated?
I have a Consumer’s Guide Auto from 2002. By that time, C-G had instituted a numeric rating system that ranked vehicles against their competitors. An average score for a mid-sized sedan was 56….the Century AND the non-supercharged Regal fell BELOW average . The Malibu just crested average, and so did the Intrigue. The Pontiac Grand Am and Grand Prix were rated LESS than average in their classes.
FWIW, the 2002 Taurus JUST squeaked above average in it’s class.
I remember my Dad being fairly enamored by not the Century but it’s identical regal twin in supercharged GS form. It’s fun reading this article, as I think I read it back then since my Dad was beginning to look for a new car, in fact with the exception of the Taurus, where he hated the styling and reputation, and Camry, which he thought was boring, and if going boring – Accord>Camry, and the Lexus which wasn’t even on the radar, I was with him going to dealers looking at and test driving every one of these. The GMs got ruled out pretty quickly as I recall, he seemed really interested in the Intrigue until experiencing it I guess, and the Buicks, despite the interest in the GS, he only looked at realistically in NA form, and appropriately called them “old people cars” to me lol. In the end he picked the Maxima, I still think that’s the best car in this article.
I think this article certainly highlights the problem Buick was having, and continues to have, with regards to trying to seem more desirable beyond “Old people’s car”. If you wanted a reliable, somewhat roomy, fairly comfortable, and inoffensive car, the Japanese had your back with their selections. If you’re tastes were more domestic, you could easily buy the cheaper Chevy or hell, even Pontiac, equivalents for a lot less. If you had been burned by GM’s cheaper offerings and weren’t going that route (who could blame you?), the Ford Taurus offered just as much as the others. If you didn’t like the Taurus’ styling (Again, who could blame you?), you could easily buy the more nicer and spacious Chrysler instead. If you wanted a GM upmarket car that wasn’t priced in Cadillac territory, the Oldsmobile Intrigue offered that. If you just wanted a higher up luxury car that could do all the Buick did and better, what was wrong with the ES? Hell, you could make the argument that even amongst Buick’s lineup there was no need for the Century, you had the more upmarket Regal, the LeSabre and Park Avenue for the people that want the traditional “Big” Buick, and the Riviera to fill in the personal luxury coupe buyers. Not to mention, they would’ve still been selling Roadmasters on the showroom floor as well, so that makes the Century even more worthless.
Ironically enough, looking at this article, it is surprising to see how the ES was regarded as well off and desirable, but now I see the ES as the modern Century for the baby boomer crowd. The safe, soft-riding, blandly styled, unassuming and unexciting choice for the older generation. Lexus is almost parallel to Buick in terms of history and current perception now.
But Buick actually did sell assloads of Centuries when they were new, so although you’ve got a point there about its position in the GM lineup, it didn’t really play out that way.
IMO the core of the “problem” with the Century, like so many other American cars, is that it only had to be good enough to appeal to people who would NEVER buy an Asian or European car. In 1997, a sizable chunk of our population was still constitutionally incapable of buying a Honda or Toyota… and with each passing year since, more and more of them have become corpses; hence the massive decline in sales and market share Buick experienced over the next decade.
I’m airquoting “problem” here because, in a vacuum, the Buick Century is not a bad car. It’s perfectly competent in most respects and reliable as far as I know. I don’t even think it’s bad looking. But it also wasn’t any better than it’s competition when new, and certainly not 8 years later when it finally went out of production. Is that a problem? Yes, absolutely… but a lot of people here seem to think otherwise. The folks who were trading in 5 or 10 year old Centuries or Skylarks or what-have-you undoubtedly thought the 1997 Century was the height of modernity, but I would guess that 80% of them are probably dead now.
GN’s analysis here is right on the money, as was Brendan’s – and none of this is some great mystery or radical, contrarian take on history. If not for its presence in China, Buick likely would have joined Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer and Saab in the great big junkyard in the sky back in 2009. It’s no coincidence that their commercials are now essentially an update on “Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile!”
I understand the popularity of the Century back then. I get that was the reason GM kept them around, because they sold well.But, from an outsider’s perspective, if you were to take away the sales figures, you must ask the question of what the Century offered that other cars, other Buicks, didn’t. From my perspective, that answer is, “very little”. Plus, I will also argue that the Century destroyed whatever desirability Buick might’ve had for the future. Buick’s history, was always that of a conservative and not very radical, but still desirable and luxurious car. Obviously, you couldn’t sell the Buick to the Baby Boomer crowd, they were domestic made cars which meant they were undesirable and stodgy. But, given the shear success of the Century and the clientele that bought them, it made the brand instantly unappealing to any one of the next generations that might’ve considered a car like that (Not saying that many Generation X or Millennials would’ve considered Buick a cool choice, or even had the cash to spend on one. But once any brand gets that “Old man car” whiff attached to it, it becomes instantly uncool for future generations, past history and products be damned)
It’s sort of like the same problem with the Cavalier, Chevrolet may make competent, well built, reasonably reliable cars now. But I guarantee that there are tons of people, not just of the baby boomer crowd, but of the Gen X crowd and my generation, that would not even think of going into a Chevrolet showroom. Because they still think they make nothing but cheap, nasty, poorly built, junk cars, thanks to the enduring legacy of the Cavalier. Anytime a car is successful with that many shortcomings or problems attached to it, the toxicity of that legacy will stain that brand for years and generations to come. It happened to Chevy thanks to the Cavalier, it happened to Buick thanks to the Century, and its happened to lots of car companies in general. That’s not a good thing. The Buick Century may not be a bad car taking by itself, but the world doesn’t exist in a vacuum without the concept of circumstance. I totally agree with both GN and Brendan about the analysis of the Century. In fact, if I were in a less than charitable mood, I think you might call it a Deadly Sin.
Totally agree, especially with what you said about the Cavalier. I just wanted to use your comment as a jumping-off point for a more general response – since I know people have argued that the Century sold well, old people loved them, there was a market for old people cars, etc.
Those “it don’t look like a Buick” ads give me a migraine. Anyone born after 1949 can tell it’s a Buick. The G_d d____d grille is an over the top version of a Buick grille! For recent GM cars, the Buicks have more “homage” cues than Cadillac or especially Chevy. I think the old Oldsmobile crap ads from the 80s are less offensive to the intellect than these recent Buick ads.
High sales do not *always* equal high profit. I worked at a GM dealer in the early 2000s. Most Centurys went to rental fleets. Retail customers stepped up to the Regal. So if your definition of success is a high number of low profit sales, you would have done extremely well at GM at the time.
My wife bought 3 Century’s 1997 / 1998 / 1999
while working for GM Fleet Operations in Naperville,IL
They were nothing special cars that got expensive even with her discount.
GM continued with the same body style way to long I thought.
It’s a good thing the Chevrolet Malibu competed against the Ford Expedition.
oops…..
Well, the fuel mileage will probably be a win for the Malibu. Everything else though….
The Oldsmobile looks like a Donk in the article’s photo.
Thanks for an interesting article. My dad passed away in 1997 and my mom was looking for a new car to replace the old leather-loaded V-6 Camry in 1998. As she was 70 I thought I would do the shopping for her albeit long distance. I picked out a Century for her; Buick had great quality ratings on paper anyhow and the was a long established Buick dealer within 10 miles of her. Perfect, I thought. However….. It was -nothing doing sonny boy- She flat refused to consider a Buick and bought herself an Avalon without any help from the kid, thank you very much. I was never completely clear on why but as I understood things indirectly she had bad memories of a 70’s Caprice AND more importantly, she viewed Buicks as “old people’s cars” and she may have been 70 but she wasn’t old enough for a Buick. I love told this story before here but it still fascinates me.
And now the Avalon is an ‘old persons car’ . No matter what age I attain,
I’ll never be old enough for an Avalon.
My grandfather had this car which looked exactly like the picture at the very top. My aunt had a 1990 Cutlass Ciera in the exact same colour. They had both vehicles in the family in the year 2000. As nice as the Century was to ride in at the time, to me, it some how didn’t have the same kind of character or heritage (ironic?) that the old A-body Ciera had. The Century felt kind of blah and vanilla and compelled me to think, “that’s nice,” whereas the Ciera was like “ooo, a peppy 3.3!”; and thinking back now, I could extend that by saying “…in a tighter package…” as I’m now aware of the significant increases in length and wheelbase by the scanned articles.
I actually have driven both, but for some odd reason, both cars had really stiff column shifters. Made it difficult to feel my way to “D” (or “OD” — whatever) if everything was stiff and forced me to look down at the gear selection marker. I guess that’s a good thing. To be further pedantic, I enjoyed dropping it down and “go!” as in the 1983 Malibu I used to drive on occasion as well but with a super massive lever unlike the stubby Ciera and Century’s. I guess it’s the law of physics and leverage at play there… ah well, don’t sweat the small stuff as they say. All three GM vehicles were still a pleasure to drive and all had that direct, cruise-missile mentality aided by a low-seat high cowl affect while on the highway which I still absolutely love about GM vehicles.
An old lady’s car. That was the demographic, and GM hit its target well. A close relative of my partner had one of these in the mid 2000s to replace her well-aged 1989 Pontiac 6000 (and she was in her late 70s then). I rode in it and thought it was merely ok. Seats were very soft without much support and the interior was very “plasticky” and felt cheap. As I recall she had quite a few problems with that car.
I remember when these were new, and how Buick’s sedan line-up was basically stuck in a time warp from 1997 all the way until 2005. Only the LeSabre was re-styled in 2000 and even that just smoothed out the edges, it had the same shape and styling cues, nothing radical or new.
This was the point when I was really getting into cars and learning to distinguish make-and-model names of all the different vehicles on the road. I eventually gave up with the newer Buicks because they were all roughly the same size, they all had those same giant oval-shaped taillights and oval grille with similar-looking ovid headlights…. not to mention that the Regal and Century were literally the EXACT same car, but with different paint and trim details (I wasn’t aware of the mechanical/interior differences). I can easily tell the difference now, but when I was 7 or 8 years old all I could say was “that’s a Buick”. The only one I could visually pick out was the Park Avenue, (and only from the front!) because it had a stand-up hood ornament, which was starting to become rare on new cars.
These cars had such a narrow but solid and reliable market – conservative seniors that were extremely traditional and change-averse. GM knew this and didn’t even try to market, style, or in any way aim the cars at anyone under age 60. They weren’t ignoring the competition… their customers were and GM was totally aware of this. I highly doubt anyone ever crossed shopped a Century over a Camry or god forbid a Nissan Maxima? They had Pontiac and Chevy to compete with these cars, which were for people in their 20s through 50s. Just look at GM ads from that time period and it’s so clear which demographic they were aiming each brand at. Good long term business strategy? Not really, but it worked for a while and they sold a ton of these until their customer base died off in the 2000s.
2000 LeSabre showed what a pre-911 world was, at least in this commercial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cpGbpheutg
I think in the early ’00s ( before 911 ) GM product line had the feeling how the ’90s was perfect, and just keep them all the same. And they deliberately made fresh new design almost as close as possible to the old design, something not common in automotive field. ( G-Body LeSabre, or SeVille. SeVille was made as close as possible to the old version )
I guess I’ll never understand marketing or demographics, I’ve heard this “Buick=old” thing my entire life. Olds and Caddy too. It’s seems natural, as “upper class” cars cost more, It would have been an unusually successful recent grad to go out and pony up Buick dough, instead he’d be buying a Ford,Chevy or even a Poncho perhaps.
But the weird thing (to me) is the idea of the “youth” market itself. This was first widely referenced and catered to in the 1960s. Aren’t those “kids” who first bought Mustangs, GTOs, now those very “old” people who bought Centurys (-ies?)? It’s hard to say that what the current market thinks is hip now will always be.
When I became driving age, everyone seemingly wanted Cutlasses, Those same ” kids ” who would look at nothing else in 1976 didn’t buy ANY Oldsmobile by the time they were able to spend Olds money. Now everything is an SUV or COV. Twenty years from now? Who knows. I hope it’s Broughamtastic Coupes! (just so I can laugh at how “right” the market is today.) End of rant.
PS My first car was a Buick Electra 225, Not an accident of fate, I wanted an Electra 225 since I experienced my uncle’s 1963 Electra. (Sometimes marketing don’t work on some “kids”)
The Buick Century is actually a great vehicle to have if you don’t give a flip about cars.
The parts replacement costs are just insanely cheap. We’re talking about transmissions from $75 to $200. Engines that are used as lawn decorations at local junkyards. The parts for these cars are so plentiful that, with the proper mechanic and a ton of tint (due to the interior), you can drive ’em as long as you want ’em.
I love cars. But for people who couldn’t care less, it’s hard to find a cheaper way to go given today’s gas prices.
Its interesting that you mentioned the disposability and anonymity of the Century.
Breaking Bad’s famous fixer, Mike Ehrmantraut, while best known for his burgundy Fifth Avenue, used 2 Centurys towards the end of the series, one was a 97-04 vintage that was his “bug out” car at the airport, with a trunk full of cash, guns and passports and the 2nd was a 90’s vintage one that he drove to his last meeting with Walter White.
I forgot about this one – the mismatched front bumper was a nice touch!
Mike drove a ’90s LeSabre at one point too.
Mike’s last Buick Century….
Couldn’t agree more, Steve. My MIL has one now with over 200K miles on it that I maintain for her.
Last I checked, Buick has been among the few American brands to get consistently good Consumer’s Union reliability marks.
In general, the trend of late is dash software going stupid; e.g. a coworker says this is the main problem with his Hyundai.
Thank you Steven for your post. My son needed a car when his Nissan Quest minivan that he proudly drove for 6 years died his last semester of college. I found him an 01 “Certified old lady driven after it was a rental”Century with only 70,000 on the odometer (2016) Century for around $2600. He drove that stopgap car for 65,000 miles over the next 5 years with few issues and many compliments from his young friends on the comfortable seats and quiet ride.
He recently replaced it with a late model Jetta due to a job change where clients may see his car and you don’t want them seeing a vintage Century that is missing a hupcap (the mechanic put it on incorrectly when rotating the tires).
Old Centurys, Regals, and Lesabres are great cars if you want something with low mileage and safe.
We still sell these currently and as soon as one comes on the lot it usually sells within 5 days or less. The reason- loads of clean well kept examples are out there, they make inexpensive reliable transportation, they will seat 6 in a pinch (try that in any mid size today), the 3100 is smooth and quiet under most normal driving conditions and provides good scoot off the line and has reasonable passing power and GM’s 4T60 and later 4T65 transmissions were smooth and responsive and more reliable than what Ford and Chrysler offered in the same time era. The 2003-2005 versions are the best as GM tightened up the suspensions a bit, added the side airbag (2000 on up) and the 3100 gained power (also 2000 on up) now making 175 horses. We had two special edition versions last year in light blue with Olds Intrigue style chrome 16″ wheels, automatic climate control and leather seats that actually looked very sharp and sold really quick. I think those were 2004/2005 models.
Brendan’s points about the Buick Century and Buick in general were spot on. In the same way that the original A-bodies weren’t changed all that much over their 15 year run, the same holds true for the next generation ’97 and up models. The soft suspension was SOOO soft it was truly dangerous in emergency maneuvering as I experienced in my 2000 Century demo that I drove for 6 months. I had plenty of time to experience what it would be like to own that car, and after owning both a 1984 and 1987 Century I can tell you I preferred the handling and overall dynamics of the older models hands down over the newer model.
Only GM can be blamed for the demise of its popular brands like Olds and Pontiac. If they keep it up, IMO Buick may not be far behind. Did they learn anything from the “It’s not your father’s Oldsmobile” campaign? If you are trying to gain younger buyers, mentioning their grandmother in the advertisement is not the way to do it. Why not showcase a beautiful black 1987 BUICK Grand National in your advertisements? Wake up Buick and General Motors!!!!
I thought they had started to wake up in the past several years with newer, more desirable products like the Enclave, Insignia-platform Regal, and the Encore CUV (which I think is rather dumpy-looking but mini-CUVs are a hot segment). The Verano is solid if unexciting, and I gather it’s a good effort at a more premium small car–the original brief of the Skyhawk, but based on the successful Cruze and with some legitimate upgrades. The Lacrosse is aging but is slated for a redesign for 2017, and the Envision crossover, new for 2016, slots neatly in between the Encore and the Enclave (it’s based on the Equinox/Terrain platform).
But whither the Regal? The car that should perhaps be their bread and butter is languishing. It was “refreshed” for 2014, but it was a mild one, totally evident that it’s a mid-cycle refresh rather than a new model. In fact it’s hard to distinguish in many regards from the 2010-2013 models. And with no true new generation on tap in the next couple years, here we go again–old product, old news, a car that was a competitor at the launch falls farther behind.
The new 2017 Lacrosse has already been introduced at the LA Auto Show and there will be a new Regal shown in 2016, you will see one in months, not the next couple of years, the next Enclave should also be shown in 2016…. plus Buick will be adding a new convertible, sourced from Opel, the Cascada.
Cascada is obviously a replacement for 200/Sebring convertible, despite from different companies.
New LaCrosse eventually looks longer, wider and lower with fixed belt-line.
What about the 1997 Regal vs. the 1997 Century? Do we think the Regal was significantly less “old-lady”? As for me, I had a hard time telling them apart. I thought they were far too similar-looking, although I know they had different engines and (guessing) suspension tuning as well. I finally realized I could tell which one was which by the headrests — the Regal had “sport” headrests with holes in them. Nowadays, it seems like I see the Century of that generation out and about much more than the Regal.
I was shopping for a new car in the winter of 1996. I didn’t even consider the Buick (too old fashioned), nor the Chevy (too dull).
Ended up with a ’97 Camry CE with manual windows and door locks. The only options were automatic transmission, A/C and speed control.
The clincher was how well it was built compared to a Ford Taurus, Ford Contour, Mazda 626, or Mitsubishi Galant.
Had 150k trouble free miles and would still have the car today if it had not been hit twice (once my mistake and another from some one who ran a stop lite).
Out of all the cars mentioned above, the Camry was far superior.
Interesting that you mention that, and that you had such a good experience, when many people consider the ’97-’01 Camry to be one of the less desirable generations. (Either that or it pales in comparison to the excellent, almost over-engineered 2nd and 3rd-gen cars.)
Maybe that just goes to show that a middling Camry is still better than a lot of its competition!
Out of curiosity, did you drive an Accord? I’d wager those were equally well built (though I’ve only ridden in one of that generation once) and it would come down to personal preference which is the better car.
Wow, automatic as an “option” in a Camry?
Fast forward 18 years, and trying to find a manual transmission as “standard” in a Camry, or any Toyota, is getting rarer and rarer, nowadays.
Pathetic. 🙁
I ended up buying a Stratus ES, I thought it was the best looking 4 door I could afford. Looking at these cars I would have bought a Taurus but I thought the Stratus a little bit sportier–the article did describe the Taurus’s styling as “individualistic”
I know the Ovoid Taurus wasn’t a winner, but at least Ford and Chrysler were willing to try something new in this market. The other cars looked like they were styled for old people who had to drive.
These didn’t seem like new cars when they were unveiled. After a “century” of dowdy, shopping-cart family vehicles with the A-body, these weren’t a revolutionary design. Instead, this generation of Century/Regal looked like something that would have been unveiled ten years earlier.
Consequently, I had zero interest in them because I didn’t see myself as the AARP market which favored them. I preferred the odd design of the Taurus/Sable. Even though it has been 25 years since their debut – I still see them as an old person’s car.
I think GM’s near bankruptcy in the early 90’s is a large reason it developed uncompetitive cars like the 97 Century and Malibu – no funds to do anything better. The failure of the 1988 W body program played a large part in GM’s financial woes. Whatever funds were available went to the truck program. The 1997 Century is what should have debuted in 1988. Same for the Malibu vs. the 1987 Corsica.
I nearly bought a Regal at the end of 1998, but my size 11 foot wouldn’t fit against the floorboard (the dash plastic came down too far). The ride was more to my liking than the Shortstar Intrigue I ended up with. I live in the old part of town, and this city loves to put manholes where they’re difficult to avoid. I did drive a Camry, which felt small and flimsy to me.
I wonder if the Buick W bodies had the same recurring intermediate steering shaft clunk (the lube would melt out) and pulsing brakes I had. The Lacrosse and Lucerne were bigger disappoints–not much improvement over the Regal and Park Avenue/LeSabre, though they did offer V8s.
Someone referred to GMs “muddled marketing” after the collapse of the Sloan ladder. Muddled lineup actually. With the arrival of the “83 Accord, GM needed to rethink everything. Then- IMO- develop two of their brands- Chevrolet/Pontiac- to compete directly with Camry/Accord. In size and price. Buick/Oldsmobile would go head to head with Lexus ES 300/Acura Legend. In size and price. You would also need a compact model- Chevrolet/Pontiac- to take on Corolla/Civic. A downsized large car- Buick/Oldsmobile- would complete the lineup. Cadillac would be separate but would need to follow their import competitors- 3 Series, 5 Series, 7 Series (on downsized large car platform).
I worked for GM when the intermediates came out, and at Chrysler the year before, when the cloud cars were still under warranty.
The Cloud cars drove very, very well. They had nice interiors, too. The problem was components would start to fail right after the warranty was up. The front ends were weak, and the brakes marginal. Fuel pumps failed at precisely 60,001 km. That said, none of this was really hard to repair and the transaxle problems had been fixed by that time.
The Malibu was a different animal. I don’t want to sound too harsh, but they really weren’t very nice cars. The interior materials were horrid, that weird GM grey fabric that absorbs every speck of dirt and is impossible to clean. The interior plastics made Mattel look good and the brakes were completely inadequate. Not only did they wear out quickly, but my stealership was charging $660+taxes for pads and rotors. When I was at Mopar, we charged exactly half this amount to do pads and rotors on the Grand Cherokees.
There were lots of other problems with the Malibu but I don’t want to GM bash too much.
I will…IIRC, the 1997 Malibu was a total POS. My wife had one as a rental and it was anti-comfortable.
Please keep in mind we’d owned a base model Corsica nine years before…and with that car, it actually felt to me like the General was TRYING to do better. We had our problems with it but at least it was enjoyable to drive and didn’t come off feeling like it was designed on a budget of $2.09.
The generation of ‘Bu that came after the ’97? I think that was even worse if that were possible, BUT…
The ’08-’12 generation was one that I think GM got right. My son owns a ’10 LTZ with around 130,000 miles. It has the 3.6, rides well, feels tight and is a BALL to drive.
To me the ultimate problem with GM in the 80s and 90s is that neither Olds nor Pontiac really had any reason to exist. Too many car lines and not enough differentiation…or the wrong kind of differentiation. In contrast, Ford really had the better idea, protect the mothership at all costs. Mercury had no reason to exist and FoMoCo finally put it out of its misery.
At the time these cars came out, I had just turned 40 and had written off US cars generally, after my family had bad experiences in the late 70s/early 80s. My father had purchased a 1989 Buick LeSabre, wire wheel covers, vinyl roof, velour upholstery; etc. For him it was fine; to me it just solidified my opinion of GM as a has-been. That was when I was purchasing Nissans and Hondas, and to this day I have not purchased a new US car since 1979. That said, I’d consider one next time, as the Japanese and European makes now strike me as no more reliable and no more desirable than US brands.
The epitome of GM phoning-it-in, this Century right here. When acceptable is the target you aim for. So much so that they apparently didn’t feel the need to design much of anything new for exterior styling; do not tell me someone didn’t see this Mazda ɛ̃fini MS-8 at the 1991 Tokyo Auto Show and tell themself “I could utilize 90% of that”. Even the mirrors and wheel design (multiple) are near perfect copies:
One of the best of GM’s “Good Used Cars”. I stand by my opinion of 2015, if I were in the market for a new midsize in 1997 it would’ve been a 5-speed Accord.
But the late 3800-powered GMs would be vindicated by history for its’ second and subsequent owners while the Honda took on a considerable “tuner tax” by the early ’00s.
Hey I own this car! Like the rest of you folks said five years ago, it’s about as generic as it gets! But this car has been bulletproof and will serve it’s job for as long as I will allow it to do so.
A good number of these Buicks were sold to the wife of a farmer. Many GM dealers in the rural areas sold both GMC (pickup truck for the farmer) and Buicks (something for the wife). The Buick was considered respectable for a woman who was involved in her church or temple. Ideal for charity work and trips to the big city to visit the kids who moved away. No goat, calf, or sheep rode in the back seat; just some items for the bake sale.
Also popular with the SnowBirds living in Florida condo towers and the Midways living the in Carolinas.
Not the most exciting vehicle, but the volume brought in needed revenue to offset some of the blunders of GM senior leadership.
The Century in this series of road tests would, in 1999, provide most of the underpinnings for the returning Impala for model year 2000.