(first posted 12/15/2015) All cars carry with them a message that describes their stereotypical owners. Toyota Corolla – “I need an affordable, dependable car to get from point A to point B”. Volvo XC70 – “I’m an upper-middle class parent with too much class for an SUV or minivan”. Nissan Maxima – “I think this car is sporty and drive like a complete, utter maniac.”
But the Buick Century?
Well for starters, it should also be noted that these messages tend to change over time, as the vehicles age and leave their original owners. When new, the Buick Century’s message was clearly and simply, “I’m a senior citizen”. From personal observation, nearly every Century I saw while this generation was still being produced was driven by someone over the age of 65. And I don’t mean that in any negative light, it’s just a fact.
Of course, over time these messages are subject to change as cars take on new owners. With this generation Century becoming ever cheap wheels, it’s taken on a new group of owners who are predominately under the age of 25. Due to this, the Century’s message is slowly developing into “This to be my grandma’s car”. But that’s irrelevant to the scope of this article.
Despite it becoming a common car in high school parking lots, the large majority of Centurys I see on the road today are still indeed driven by senior citizens. In many cases they are likely the original owners too. So what is/was it about the Century that’s made it so popular with those in their golden years?
Well, for starters just look at it. Its styling is an innocuous blend of gentle curves, soft ovals, and a single beltline flowing from stem to stern. Simple lower bodyside moldings and thin strips of chrome were the vehicle’s only ornamentation, with plain looking wheel covers standard. Inoffensive and unexciting was the name of the game, and the Century was successfully as inoffensive and unexciting as a standard 8.5 x 11-inch piece of white copy paper, just the way its buyers liked it.
Just as its boxy predecessor was highly generic among ’80s cars, the 1997 Century was supremely generic among late-’90s sedans. Quite frankly, the 1997 Century broke such little ground, if any, that it easily could’ve passed as a 1992.
This was probably for the best however, as anything too radical might have given cardiac episodes to owners so used to the old Century, which had changed little in 15 years. I’ll bet they weren’t at all troubled by the fact that the last 2005 to roll of the assembly line looked just the same as it did almost a decade earlier.
Inside, things were just as bland. A straightforward and simple dash featured soft curves much like the exterior. Along with monotonous colored plastic somewhat unusually devoid of any wood-tone accent trim, it ensured that nothing would jump out and startle any drivers or passengers.
A large speedometer was placed in the very center of the instrument cluster, flanked by fuel and oil temperature gauges. A signal of the Century’s positioning, no tachometer was included. Controls for the radio and climate control were clear and straightforward, even if they were a bit of a reach.
Wide, flat bottomed seats made for easy entry/exit and offered plenty of cushioning for around town motoring. Power window buttons were extra large and the controls for the available power seats were placed on the door for easy view and access. And yes, an all-burgundy interior was still offered for the first several years of production, though most Centurys typically came in this car’s sterilizing taupe.
Equipped quite reasonably even in base Custom form, the list of standard features and safety equipment included air conditioning, power windows, power locks, remote keyless entry, lighted vanity mirrors, dual front airbags, daytime running lights, and anti-lock brakes. Add to that a soft suspension, triple door seals, variable-assisted power steering for easier parking lot maneuvers, large buttons for radio and climate controls, a bench seat with column shifter, a not particularly lively V6, and the Century was the perfect match for the stereotypical driver eligible for Medicare.
As I’m describing this car, one word keeps ringing in my ear that overwhelming sums up the 1997-2005 Buick Century: Numb. The fact that this one is painted that all too common late-90s/early-00s GM light beige makes that word even more fitting. No lie, I saw four more beige Centurys the same day I photographed this car.
But for this car is numb necessarily a bad thing? After all, Buick was giving its demographic what they wanted. Over its 9-year run, Buick sold over 1 million examples of this generation Century, and with a majority of them going to private customers, there was clearly a market. But just like strong ticket sales reveal nothing about how good a movie actually is (i.e. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull), looking exclusively at unit sales tells nothing about a car’s actual merits. Plenty of people eat at Taco Bell, not because it’s good but because it’s cheap and familiar to them.
Additionally, selling a car like the Century and keeping it around for so long did no favors for Buick in terms of brand image and enticing new, younger buyers. As evidenced by many cars today, even Buicks, vehicles can indeed be geared towards older folks without being duller than watching paint dry.
In any event, the more alarming issue at the time of the Century’s launch was sitting just a few feet away from it on showroom floors. The only AA-body nameplate kept around by 1997, the Century now rode on the Regal’s W-body. But the 1997 Century and Regal shared more than just their chassis, they now shared the entirely same sheet metal and interior.
Apart from less exterior chrome, a more aggressive front fascia, and cheesy fake wood trim and bucket seats with a console shifter on the inside, there was little to visually distinguish the two from one another. The Regal did feature a firmer suspension, greater content, and choice of two more powerful engines, but with the same cheap interior materials and identical looks inside and out, it was hard to justify the Regal’s price premium. Sales of the Regal were expectedly far lower.
Regardless of their identicalness, the fact the GM gave each of these cars virtually no attention in almost a decade soon became the more troubling issue. Given how well the Century was selling, yielding substantial returns on its investment, it would’ve been prudent of GM to give it some meaningful updates. Instead, GM did just the opposite and eliminated trim levels and certain features to allow for fewer possible configurations. They even started charging customers $600 extra if they wanted anti-lock brakes.
With Century owners getting on in their years, driving less, and thus not needing to buy a new car, the Century was doing nothing to gain any new conquest buyers. Those who were looking to replace their Century either continued holding out hope for a new model or got sick of waiting and bought a more competitive, more modern car elsewhere. From 2002 to 2009 Buick sales continuously decreased from over 430,000 in 2002 to under 103,000 by 2009, despite the addition of an SUV, crossover, and minivan. Long ago, many may have aspired to own a Buick, but with cars like this, that was no longer.
In GM’s defense, maybe management even forgot they were still making the Century. Personally, I know by 2005 I did. The 1997-2005 Century was, and continues to be one of those cars that just blends in with the scenery. There are still plenty around, but you’d never know unless you’re actively looking out for one. They’re just kind of “there”. The fact that it’s near impossible to distinguish a ’97 model from an ’05 makes this numbness and ambiguity even stronger.
Buick would finally get around to replacing the Century and Regal (which would live on for even longer in China), with this. A car that once again looked and felt like it had already come out five years earlier. The less said about the 2005 LaCrosse though, the better.
Related Reading:
The review seems harsh, maybe because my dad has become this car’s demographic. He happens to favor Chrysler Sebrings, and has outlived a couple. 🙂
GM built SO many sedans covering about the same market space that I just don’t see a problem with a value oriented, comfortable car that works for older people that don’t want to outlive their money. If you wanted more economy, lux, or sport, GM had options up the wazoo.
I drove an early version of this car as a rental for about a week. It was pretty comfortable and quite competent. Maybe the suspension was a notch too soft, but there were upgrades available (at least as a Regal) for those that wanted that.
It’s even aspirational to an extent – certainly several notches up from the bottom of the automotive food chain, and this was Buick’s base car – and starting well above base levels is Buick’s traditional market position – perhaps this era was even better done than in the ’60s and ’70s when Buick got into the stripper business. Nobody confused this with a Kia Sephia.
The plain interior was partly a product of its time. Everybody kept saying that monochromatic interiors were the thing that manufacturers should do. Buick followed a model led by Japanese and German cars. Be careful what you wish for.
Without some real research, it seems reactionary to say this is the kind of car that brought down GM – and citing sales figures from a horrible recession year as proof of Buick’s decline in popularity is also troubling – just about everyone’s sales hit the skids in 2009.
GM went down for a lot of reasons, and product certainly plays a factor. But, GM was widely recognized for having an improved product portfolio going into the recession. Government policy regarding energy, legacy costs from retirees, and the simple mechanics of a bone crushing recession mostly caused by businesses outside the automotive realm all had much more to do with GM’s bankruptcy than simply attributing it to the 2006 and up GM product range.
Buick sales had been decreasing steadily for 20 years (at least) by 2009. It’s totally uncontroversial to say the Century is emblematic of their decline – which has nothing to do with how good of a car it is for old people or as a $1000 used beater/hand-me-down.
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/10/buick-brand-sales-figures-usa-canada.html?m=1
The numbers on your link go back to 2002, not 1989.
Without year by year figures going back to 1946, its a bit dangerous for me to comment.
But, generally, if Buick sales were anywhere around the half-million mark, the executives were a happy lot.
When sales were below a quarter million, concern would be in the air.
Significant ups and downs have been the norm for Buick, the worst lows usually associated with a bad economy when mid price cars seem to get hit the worst.
In the early 2000s Buick was suffering the SUV craze as much as anyone. If you think the early 2000s look bad for Buick, think about how those numbers would look if the 60K annual sales for the Rendezvous weren’t in there. Talk about just in time.
Generally, the years 2006 through 2009 are very hard to use reflecting the merits of products ranging from blenders to bazookas, let alone Buicks. They didn’t call it the Great Recession for nothing.
Speaking only from used car experience, the worst problems these developed in the northeast was severely rusted rocker panels even as the rest of the car stayed in good condition. For less affluent folks, these became durable, long-lived daily transportation that provided all the good qualities mentioned above. Many we saw had 100K on the odometer to start, only to roll up 20-30K miles annually with just regular maintenance headed for the 200K mark.
Numb, yes compared to a BMW but, what might surprise the enthusiast writers is all folks aren’t looking for sports car qualities in their car.
Evelyn, the widowed 85 year old chairwoman of my church’s Senior Club drives one of these. Yup, that about sums it up.
Has all the qualities I have liked in a car since I was able to drive and before: quiet, roomy, some float in the ride, easily repaired, easy on the eyes, parts availability for the long term, reliable mechanicals. NO stupid console. A little large, but the fuel economy is something I could compromise on over the small cars I’ve always driven since 1980.
Add in the fact of it’s long production run with little change and it’s virtues are clear for me. What a concept: an honest car that does what it’s designed to do for as long as one cares to own it. Damn that Century.
I learned to drive on a 66 Mercury Montclair four door sedan. As such, it’s Century qualities have been desirable to me from my teens and earlier. And I wasn’t to become part of the over 55 crowd for several decades.
The Avenger/Sebring/200 seem to take the place of the Century and something I’d be interested in owning. A nice complement to my 63 Valiant and a perfect “upgrade” to the ONION. And about as large as I’d ever want to go.
Great article, Brendan. Sorry I can’t agree with you on the Century. The one my cousin rented was quiet and comfortable and rode smoothly. Right up my alley since my earliest days. Even John Waters drives Buicks. For years. And always in black. And yes, I think even a Century like these at one point.
+1. Find a Regal with its 3.8 in good condition, you’ll be good to go for another decade!
I have to comment as I own a 2003 Buick Century Custom in light beige color. Car was originally purchased for my mother and she was very comfortable with it. At the time I had a 1997 Toyota Camry with the 2.2 liter 4-cylinder. The Toyota could out accelerate the Buick 3.1 V-6 and had better handling. But the Buick was more comfortable riding, felt relaxed and didn’t feel stressed, unlike the Toyota. There were times I wish I had the 3.8 V-6 that was offered in the similer Regal. (Understand the 3.8 V-6 is a Buick engine whereas the 3.1 V-6 was a Chevrolet engine.)
The Buick’s front bench seats is more comfortable than the Toyota’s bucket seat and after a two-hour drive, I felt better compared to a similar drive in the Toyota. (Nice thing about bench seats is your girlfriend or wife can cuddle up close to you without that center console interfering.)
As for exterior and interior styling, yeah you could say it was bland and numb but hardly offensive like most cars today look. The Buick is straightforward, honest and unpretentious. Why do cars today have to have a mean, sinister, obnoxious, in-your-face, bad-boy attitude appearance?
The car, being bland in appearance, was also “stealthy.” I recall once doing 80 on the freeway and the cops ignored me as they passed and pulled over a late model aggressively-styled car (forget what it was).
The Buick has about 95k miles and is starting to have more frequent mechanical problems. Had to replace the intake nanifold gasket, power steering pump and all four window regulators. When time comes to replace the Buick, am wondering what equally straightfoward and decent-looking car is available now.
The Buick Century interior could be better quality but the intrument panel display and controls are straightforward and uncomplicated as they should be.
I have to comment as I own a 2003 Buick Century Custom in light beige color. Car was originally purchased for my mother and she was very comfortable with it. At the time I had a 1997 Toyota Camry with the 2.2 liter 4-cylinder. The Toyota could out accelerate the Buick 3.1 V-6 and had better handling. But the Buick was more comfortable riding, felt relaxed and didn’t feel stressed, unlike the Toyota. There were times I wish I had the 3.8 V-6 that was offered in the similer Regal. (Understand the 3.8 V-6 is a Buick engine whereas the 3.1 V-6 was a Chevrolet engine.)
The Buick’s front bench seats is more comfortable than the Toyota’s bucket seat and after a two-hour drive, I felt better compared to a similar drive in the Toyota. (Nice thing about bench seats is your girlfriend or wife can cuddle up close to you without that center console interfering.)
As for exterior and interior styling, yeah you could say it was bland and numb but hardly offensive like most cars today look. The Buick is straightforward, honest and unpretentious. Why do cars today have to have a mean, sinister, obnoxious, in-your-face, bad-boy attitude appearance?
The Buick Century interior could be better quality but the intrument panel display and controls are straightforward and uncomplicated as they should be.
The Buick, bland as it is, is also “stealthy.” I recall driving on the freeway at around 80 mph when a cop passed me and pulled over one of those aggressively-styled car instead (forgot what it was.)
As the Buick approaches 95k miles and starting to have more fequent maintenance repairs. It’s been a good car and I like it and would like to keep it as long as possible.
But if I do have to replace it, what car nowadays comes closest to being decently-styled, straightforward and honest?
I’ve known two people who drive this era Century. One was a fellow in his early 30’s, who was given the car by his grandmother when she gave up her driver’s license. +1 for the expected demographic. He liked it just fine, but he was not a car guy nor picky (it was quite an upgrade from his previous vehicle, an Astro EXT van with over 200K on the odometer). The other is a co-worker who currently drives an ’02 Century Limited. He’s in his early 50’s and considers himself a Buick man, having owned three of them since he came to the USA in the 90’s. It’s a pleasant sage-y green color with a gray interior, a nice enough car. The opposite of exciting, but for his wants–reliable, comfortable transportation–it gets the job done. He bought it used in 2010, but I get the impression that if he had been in the market for a new car at the time, the result might have been the same. It replaced a ’96 Century that was totaled in an accident, and ancient design though that car was, he liked it well enough that he knew what he wanted straight away. So the car has its virtues for the right person.
However, all things considered, my response to Buick is “you could have done so much better”. At the *bare* minimum the Limited trim should have been the base model, as it’s at the bottom end of what I’d consider acceptable for a car that was once considered aspirational.
Brendan – What a great write up – I always skip who the author is in an attempt to play “ok who wrote this?” by the end of the article. Your low-level snark is up to speed because it wasn’t until the comments when I realized it wasn’t Paul!
But everything you said is very true – this car was not a Buick, certainly designed or built not to their long tradition of “aspirational” if you will. It may have been competent and reliable, but it was…white bread toast. That’s not a Buick.
Oddly enough my elderly aunt, after a lifetime of Buicks, finally went for a Camry for her last and what ended up being her final go around. Nothing in the Buick line spoke to her in the 2005 era.
In 1999 we rented a Buick Regal for our two week honeymoon, driving throughout upstate New York and eastern Canada. It was a good highway cruiser, but nothing I would have purchased for myself or my wife. It was just there.
Since the U.S. Chevrolet Lumina production ended in 2001 after the last ones for fleet owners were produced, The Philippine version of the Chevrolet Lumina which began on 2005 was actually the same platform wise and related to the U.S. 1990-01 Lumina and the same FWD W-Bodied Buick Century/Regal just like the one featured here. Remember after 2001 beginning in 2000, the Chevrolet Impala from 2000-13 were also using the same Lumina FWD W-Bodied chassis also replaced the 1995 Vintage U.S. Lumina. Once a future article on the related Chevrolet Lumina appears here, I will comment more about it in details especially its RWD Holden and Opel based Cousins which were also renamed Chevrolet Luminas as well.
I bought my 1st New 2000 Buick Century at age 29.
Drove it 178,000 miles. Then bought a 2005 Buick Century and still have it in 2021.
I just switched all the accessories over to the new car including the cloth top. Here it is at 157,000 miles.
I still get compliments on it.
I had some seat time in a mid 2000s Buick Centuregal. Not sure which. I don’t think the owner knew either. I asked him why the seats were reclined so far back, he didn’t know either. It’s like reclined Lazy-boys were installed as front seats. Even as a passenger it felt like I was reclined 45 degrees, and there was no ability to straighten it up.
He had bought this at an auction, so had not too much capital invested in it.
He eventually passed it down to one of his sons, and while he was driving it, the engine had a catastrophic failure driving on the highway. That was the end of that car.
A co-worker had one in the mid-00s, in that soporific beige color, and he was about 50. But he loved it. He’d just moved from the Midwest so I figured their calibration of what is cool is a bit behind the times.
“…look at Oldsmobile. I always thought they should have had their own Century style version of the W- body…” Oldsmobile could have done their usual thing in ’97 by offering a slightly sportier version of a Buick- in this case the Century. The Intrigue- with few Oldsmobile cues- failed as an “import fighter” because it was ” too drastic a departure” from Olds traditional relationship to Buick, i.e., as it’s slightly sportier- and younger- cousin.
I looked at Century/Regal seriously when I wrecked my Bonneville in ’98 and I was under 40, so there! I would have bought one with the 3800 except there wasn’t enough room on the floorboard for my left size 11. Ended up with an Intrigue with the new Shortstar, which was the best thing about that car. It had constant niggling problems with the battery, brakes, and steering, and the ride was a bit too stiff, but at least it could carry my 500 lb BIL without wallowing.
The 2000 LeSabre my dad bought really was a short old people’s car.
No rear centre armrest. I will say it again: this 2000 Buick Century has no rear centre armrest. No model of car in this size class, however low in the trim hierarchy it might be should be sold without the rear centre armrest. That is a damning ommission on a car lik this, sold on the promise of comfortable travel. The blandness was another failure – but you could live with that as it did not affect the performance (the comfort performance).
That said, GM´s idea that older customers have no feelings or sense of style is horrifically patronising. Like Fiat´s incompetent handling of Lancia, GM´s incompetent handling of Buick is a product management crime.
I have a rear center armrest in both of my Buick Centurys.