(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:
Never seen one in the flesh, but to my eyes it’s a reasonably good looking car. Does that mean I’m getting old? Seriously though, those sales numbers are pretty impressive; I guess if bland, comfortable transport is what you want, then this must have ticked all the boxes.
Should we do stereotypical statements for our own vehicles? My Mitsubishi Outlander is “My wife wants a big powerful SUV but we can’t afford the running costs; we’ll have to get something boring and mediocre instead”
Squint your eyes and think American Holden Calais, slightly more bling on the regular car.
You hit the nail on the head Brendan! I had one as a demo back in 2002 and all I can say is yes, that car was NUMB. It was the same color as the featured car too! And yes, GM sold a lot of these. They loaded them up with features and gave them inoffensive styling so older folks loved them. Today I see either young kids driving a beater version or an older couple in a mint condition one. And nearly every one I see has rotted out rocker panels too!
Yeah, what’s with the rocker panels? I had a ’97 GP and a 2003 GP, and the rockers rotted away on both. No rust anywhere else on either car after 10 years.
Not sure where GM got the metal for their rocker panels but all of them seem to rot out! Same thing with most Chrysler minivans from the mid-2000’s.
Since they could no longer afford the annual model change, the Auto-Rot™ rocker panels were their way of telling you it was time to buy a new car.
Very nice article. I agree, during my time in the Dayton area in the late 90s – early 2000s, these cars were very popular with older folks (an age of which I am getting very close to…).
Just my sense but these were folks that never were, and would never be, import owners. And if any vehicle of this vintage could mimic the reliability of a Camry, it was probably these Buicks.
I just can’t work up any real enthusiasm for any GM product of the 90s as they all have these “Rubbermaid” dashes – those are just a real turn-off for me.
I like these. They were comfortable decent cars and were nicer than I expected.
Dad is on his second (and last, given he really needs to surrender his license soon!), and “numb” sums the car up nicely.
These full sized Buicks got amazing highway gas mileage and were very reliable.
They were very competitive against the Japanese bland and numb models.
Mission accomplished.
The Century was a midsize car, and a barely competitive one at that when it was released as a 1997. With no updates in almost a decade, it was an embarrassment to Buick by the time it ended production in 2005.
It lacked key safety features like side curtain airbags, four-wheel disc brakes, passenger seat airbag sensor, and standard ABS.
Competitors’ four cylinders were making nearly as much power as the Century’s anemic 12-valve V6, with their V6s making substantial higher output while getting better fuel economy.
The handling refinements of its competitors such as gas-pressurized struts, multi-link rear suspension, and 15+ inch wheels were nowhere to be found on the Century.
The Century’s horrendous hard plastic interior was completely uncompetitive, and also lacked numerous comfort, convenience, and entertainment features of its competition.
It was cars like this that nearly drove GM to the brink of collapse, and permanently turned younger buyers away, cementing their views the GMs are only for the elderly and rental fleets.
The Century was by no means a competitive car. It sold so well because most of its buyers blindly followed habit and bought another Buick. They probably would have bought anything Buick sold for that price. Even if you view its Japanese competition as just as numb, they were safer, more efficient, offered a substantially greater amount of content, and handled better.
Hater
Very. This was the product of what seemed a short time ago a world industrial leader. But this very model is the apex of just how far GM fell.
Overall a good article but some of your specs and facts are off.
The 2004-05 Century’s came std with 4 wheel disk brakes actually. ABS was removed from the options list on basic Custom trim level cars for the 2003/05 model years only due to a cost cutting value oriented move by Bob Lutz. All 1997-2002 Century’s have ABS std. For 2000-2005 they offered a driver’s side air bag also.
Fun fact. The 2000-2005 Century 3100 V6 made 175 Hp and 195 torque from a 1993 design when the 3100 was first introduced. A current volume selling 2016 Toyota Camry has a large displacement 2.5 4 cylinder with 178 Hp and 170 FT LBS of torque in a similar sized and weight car meaning they have 25 less torque and close to the same HP. Rental 2000-2005 Century’s I have driven managed 32-33 highway mileage on the open road very easily. A rental 2014.5 Camry SE with the 2.5 barely got 33 in the exact same driving conditions.
1997-2005 Centurys had 15″ tires as std equipment with some late model Special models getting 16″ chrome wheels borrowed from the Intrigue. It was the old pre 1997 A-body cars that wore 14′ rubber. They also used gas pressurized front and rear struts with 4 coil independent suspensions and ditched the old beam axle setup.
As far as handling nothing handled worse than the 1997-2006 Camry 4 cylinder cars I have driven. Those were the most sloppy handling numb steering tire squealing cars I have ever driven. 2003 -2005 Century were re-tuned for better handling response.
As far as features the 1997 car did have a far more modern menu than the previous A-body car. Fully independent suspension with 4 wheel coil struts, front and rear sway bars, 15″ tires instead of 14″, retained accessory power, automatic headlights with delay, day time running lights, an optional integrated child seat, alarm system with ignition disable, rear child safety locks, adjustable front seat belts, a much more comprehensive oil monitoring system, optional steering wheel radio controls and in dash CD changer, one touch driver windows, optional heated outside mirrors, an optional power moonroof and interior air filter all of which were not offered on the old A-body.
Fun fact- The 2014.5 Camry SE 2.5 rental I had for a weekend lacked some of these features that were std on the 1997 Century including retained power, fully automatic headlights, a power driver’s seat (optional but included in every base Century I have seen), light vanity mirrors, day time running lamps and a few other minor items.
Consumer Guide Auto stated from 1997 onward that the Century provides a no surprises competitive mid size sedan for traditional buyers and many were sold retail. Dull and numb they were but to say they were un-competitive misses the intended mission for this series of car and a type of buyer that clearly still exists today.
Front and rear side curtain airbags were not available on the Century, and rear brakes were drum, not disc. True that alloy wheels were initially available on the Limited (which was discontinued) and ABS was originally standard (as I stated in the article), but by 2003, no longer.
As for comparing personal experiences driving Centurys and Camrys and such, that’s just splitting hairs at this point.
Surely Chevrolet should have been going after the Camry. Buick should have been aiming considerably higher. Or had they fallen into the fifties trap of aiming for volume at any cost?
I have a 2004 Century and it has both ABS and 4 wheel disc brakes. Check your facts sir!
I own a 2004 Buick Century Limited with the optional driver’s side curtain air bag. Stop making dumb statements that you know nothing about. Just because you like Japanese cars doesn’t make them better. I for one would rather drive a 20 year old Buick than any new Toyota.
Even though Century is a mid-size sedan, it’s very close to downsized full-size sedan. ’90s H-Body LeSabre is technically a full-size, but W-Body Century is almost equally big, and the body looks more updated. In terms of comfort, Century is better than almost all remaining competitors.
Safety wise, Century is not bad. My roommate learned about it when her Camry was totaled by a Century in a rear-ending accident, with the rear axle bent, the Century ran away as if knowing nothing. It happens too often where senior people concentrate.
Century is a car even more homy than Camry, even though Camry is pretty homy already.
I think you are viewing the car from your enthusiast eyes and possibly anti-domestic bias rather than how it fit into the market place. It was just an appliance as was the Japanese competitors. Cars are built to a price point and there are compromises.
The 2004 Buick Century 3.1 got 27 mpg in a full sized pushrod engine and the smaller 2004 Toyota Camry 2.4 got the same mileage. So much for your high tech engine ramblings. Information per fueleconomy.gov
The “low tech” Buick engines did not need regular timing belt changes, had a lower hood profile, and they were lighter.
I’m not viewing it from any enthusiast eyes or anti-domestic bias. I’m viewing it from the perspective that for an early-2000s car priced around $20,000, there were much better similarly-priced choices out there.
Competitors (Japanese and American) offered more safety features, more user-friendly interiors, more advanced-more powerful-more efficient engines, higher quality interior materials (at least for Japanese competitors) all for around the same price.
Even a similarly priced Chrysler Sebring LXi offered more safety equipment, comfort features such as standard 8-way adjustable driver’s seat (only 4-way in the Century), and a more advanced suspension setup for both better comfort and handling.
What’s worse is that Buick was marketing itself as a premium brand (which most knew wasn’t true by this point). To have less features and refinement than cars in a size and price class below was just pathetic.
In regards to my previous comment, what I meant about competitors’ superior handling has nothing to do with doing laps around Nurburgring. By handling, I am referring to the car’s ability to safely accelerate out into oncoming traffic, its braking ability, and general handling in emergency maneuvers. Small tires, lack of standard ABS, and a floaty ride made for less confident driving than its competitors.
Check the numbers per your own source. The 2004 Buick Century with the 3.1L V6 got 18 city/27 highway/21 combined. The 2004 Honda Accord with its 24-valve 3.0L V6 with variable valve timing, got 18 city/27 highway/22 combined, all while making 65 more horsepower and 17 more lb-ft of torque. So much for you fueleconomy.gov ramblings.
“Cars are built to a price point and there are compromises”. The attitude of building cars that are “just good enough”, is not a way to build cars. Sooner of later, people realize that better cars can be had for the same amount of money. Buick (and GM) did this for years, and their reputation has been somewhat permanently damaged.
This is why Buick sales are still so low today, despite vastly improved and more competitive vehicles. Even their best-selling car, the Encore, does only about 1/3 the annual volume of this Century.
The only reason the Century sold so well was that for most people who bought it, the Century was their only consideration for a new car. Well, most of those folks aren’t driving any longer and many who still are realized there were better cars out there for the money and are driving Accords, Camrys, and Fusions (yes, an American car), among other vehicles.
I don’t know where your getting the Accord to Century comparisons, these were probably cross shopped more against Grand Marquis and caskets than an Accord. I sold these new, NO ONE buying one of these was ever in danger of going near a Honda showroom.
As for “user friendly: interiors, now your just looking for something….they only way these could have had an more “user friendly” interior would be if they had a big red button marked “bingo parlor” on the dash and it drove you there automatically.
Chrysler Sebring LXi-trying to remember the last one of those I ever saw on the road, its been a while, also, why are we comparing the uplevel Sebring to the base Century Custom?
Your knocks against this car make about as much sense as knocking a Hoveround because it can’t keep up with a Yamaha R1, if the Century was too soft and old fashioned for you, look around the rest of the GM late 90’s stable, Malibu? Impala? Intrigue? Grand Prix? Buicks own Regal in GS trim, how about a nice Saturn L series? (I know, I’m sure these are all sh*t too right?)
You seem to think as if this was GM’s only midsized sedan and that its specific mission was to bring in Accord customers, which is abut 9 billion miles from its intended purpose.
I’m comparing the Accord and Century because Rene mentioned Japanese competitors and the Accord was a similarly sized and priced car as the Century at the time. Of course very few people cross-shopped a Century with and Accord, but on paper they were in the same class. Not to mention that many former Century owners are driving Accords now.
By not being as user-friendly, all I meant was that the stereo and climate controls were placed somewhat of a reach. I’ll admit that is a stretch (no pun intended).
A 2004 Chrysler Sebring LXi V6 sedan was priced from $21,215 and a 2004 Buick Century was priced from $21,815. In reality, the Sebring/Stratus, Taurus/Sable, and GM’s other W-bodies were the Century’s only true competition.
The Century certainly succeeded with its intended buyer – no disagreement there. But this was only short-term thinking. Those buyers were driving less and buying fewer new cars. Those coming to that age grew up in different times and different buying habits. They didn’t just blindly buy a Buick “because it’s a Buick”.
Sorry, but the only way any of the people that bought these new are now driving Accords, is because they are either vampires or Honda started making Accord branded caskets.
It’s difficult to make a break with a traditional customer, no matter how “uncool” those people might be, they still pay the bills, I know that I liked selling Buicks because all Buick buyers had great credit, paid cash, and in lots of cases, they didn’t haggle too much, so…GASP…you made some money selling a car, radical concept….. So yeah, they were good customers.
What was Buick supposed to do? Tell them to go get bent?
See my post further down about breaking away from traditional customers and what Buick has done since the Century.
Carmine, I’m just hoping you don’t go away again.
Hello Brendan,
We can agree to disagree. Thanks for the volley of follow ups. It keeps it interesting.
It would also be an interesting Segway to have bench reviews of this car versus that car on CC. The comment section would be on fire!
BTW, I have 2 German cars, 2 domestic cars, and a Japanese car in my stable. I try to stay open minded.
Thanks for following up with this, it’s always nice stepping back and speaking in these terms. I’m glad to agree to disagree. Disagreeing over cars is what makes CC so much more lively and interesting. And I apologize if I seemed a little hot-headed. Sometimes you just need to see where people are coming from with their views. I look forward to more sharing of opinions in the future.
Per your idea, just to clarify, you mean comparison reviews from when a certain car was new?
First off Brendan, I really enjoyed the post and your comments, and am firmly in the “agree” camp with you. This Century was a colossal miss and cannot be defended because senior citizens bought them like they always had. When I was a kid, my grandmother drove Buicks, as did my father. He was “younger and hipper” than she was–yet both were happy having a premium product. When you lose the younger base, you are in serious trouble. Brands need to stay fresh and relevant for each generation. Lexus, for example, has significantly evolved their product line, yet the brand values are solidly intact. Sure Lexus skews older, but in no way are they an “old person’s” brand. It is what Buick had, and then lost, and that is a real shame. I am a firm believer in the old adage “you can sell a young man’s car to an old man, but never an old man’s car to a young man.” Always true, no matter what era or generation you are talking about.
As for period reviews as mentioned in Rene’s comment below, I likely have a lot and can post them, if people are interested in seeing more. IIRC, they weren’t much different than what has been posted here (safe choice for old people, good value for “yestertech,” no threat to the class leaders).
You’re definitely spot-on with that comment.
If you have some contemporary reviews of family sedans like this and other late-1990s, I’d say they’d get some good feedback from people. I’m sure a lot of people here owned them.
The low tech V6 Buick needed regular replacement of its buried deep inside the engine plastic lower intake manifold gaskets. If not caught in time the oil would be diluted with coolant and the engine would be toast. Far far from Toyota reliability.
Honda built the retirement car of choice here, the description for this Buick fits both brands
Bland, yes, but I cannot stop thinking about what might have happened had the original Citation been as reliable as the Century.
Sales would have still dropped off. The J and A car were so close in size and mission that when they were dropped on top of the X body, sales were bound to drop. The next gen with their import loving ways were also starting to buy more of the cars, and with the Ohio plant opening in 82, there were more Accords for them.
This car is one of the reasons I don’t think leaving the GM 80s bodies in production so long was such a sin. The 82-96 A bodies were a product of an era where GM was still at the cutting edge of space utilization and efficient design. They had successfully made their cars dramatically smaller and more efficient while still managing to offer the smooth quiet roomy easy torque feel of an American car. This was not for everyone but it just did it better than anyone else.
What did this car add. Was the style distinctive in any way. The car added 600 pounds of weight over the car it replaced. Now too heavy for the four. 3348 pounds in 1997, heavier than a 78 Century.
Was the effort to not offend C/D why the tires were 70 series instead of 75. Remember on the Malibu yesterday the F41 package was the only way to get 70 series tires, now it was not possible to avoid them. Why there was no wood in the interior. Why were there no wire wheel covers or vinyl tops. It was still quiet and smooth ride centered, but did they really go any extra mile to make sure it was the best at this. So GM could point to it and say this is the best you can get in any one thing.
Instead this Century went to China and was a great success there. It had a better back seat and a smoother quieter ride than the 80s VW Quantum, the Century’s only real competition there. GM could have done better, but they were too chastened and depressed to even try.
Certrainly fits my nearest neighbors. An extended family, all over 60. For many years they drove an ’88 Century (uncharacteristically red!). Last year they traded up to the beige newer version, exactly as shown above.
These cars don’t make me sleepy, they make me sad (and mad). This is supposed to be a Buick, not cheap wheels for the retirement home. For decades, Buick provided the rides for upper middle class Americans, and were seen as conservative but desirable and premium. Huge, profitable business. Just ask Lexus.
I find it appalling that GM thought it was OK to keep churning out such a dated car. When people say that the Camry is just a “bland car but look how it sells” my counterpoint would be that Toyota religiously keeps it updated, with new styling and engineering advancements. No generation ever lasts more than 5 years. Boring, yes, but totally competent and well executed.
The biggest laugh for me however was the idiotic Regal. This was the era was GM was infiltrated with Brand Managers, most of them from Consumer Packaged Goods companies (at that time John Smale on GM’s board was from P&G). So the attitude was like selling laundry detergent. Tide and Gain are basically the same stuff, but through marketing are “targeted” at different people. It’s a strategy to gain shelf space in grocery, but not applicable to selling complicated high dollar consumer durables and therefore irrelevant to automotive marketing. But GM embraced the CPG brand management concept and misapplied it, with the most embarrassing example being the Century and Regal. I kid you not: each of these cars was seen as a separate brand (Buick was no longer viewed as the brand, it was all about the model brands), and with a straight face they tried to market the Century and Regal to different people. The Regal was for “dynamic, active lifestyle buyers seeking a premium experience and considering imports” whereas the Century was for “young or young-at-heart buyers seeking premium value who shop domestics.” Utter nonsense and an epic fail. GM was so desperately out of touch then in so many ways.
To be fair, there are a significant amount of differences between a Century Custom and a Regal GS, even though they share the same W-body burger patty.
Oh, yes, I remember this era at GM with P&G toothpaste guys in charge of the marketing, with each car suddenly a “brand” whose image had to be carefully manipulated, often at the expense of the *real* brand, the marque. In Century TV commercials, the tagline at the end was something like “discover a little luxury in this Century”, whereas the Regal was “the official car of the supercharged family” (the top-line GS model had a supercharged engine, get it?). The LeSabre was “Peace of Mind”. All these were in place of an actual Buick slogan that could be used for the entire lineup, something like “The Ultimate Driving Machine” that was used often enough for people to actually remember it and which brand it promoted.
Over at Chevy, they ended each TV spot with both the car model brand slogan AND the Chevy slogan, further confusing customers. Something like “Impala; Let’s Go for a Drive!, from Chevrolet, Chevy Runs Deep” or whatever Chevy was using back then, which unsurprisingly I can’t remember. GM’s mindset, like P&G’s, was that differentiation between brands should be done through advertising and marketing rather than through product. Obviously this strategy failed spetacularly which is why all of Detroit’s big three would soon eliminate entire marques, especially GM.
I wished more marketing managers understood that each model was a brand with it’s own identity. Then maybe an Accord wouldn’t have transformed from a Scirrocco competitor to an Impala one. A Century manager would have remembered what the car was to do well, and have the sense of history to know how to spice it up instead of bland it down.
Yes the 97-05 Century was bland, numb and boring to drive. However they sold a butt ton of them each year because they were comfortable to sit in. When I was working at the Buick/Pontiac/Chevy/GMC dealership while in college, they could not keep them on the lot as the cars were so popular.
Somebody in their 50’s or 60’s had paid their dues in dealing with driving a cramped small shit box and would have wanted a comfortable car for their last(or next to last) car. I can understand that. At 38 years of age, Most of my cars I have owned were small cramped cars that I drove ether to save pennies on Gas or to lower my carbon footprint and every night my back or legs would bark at me because these cars were cramped. When I hit 35, I realized that life is short and I was tired of having to rest up after getting home from work after a long drive because of a small car and told myself I have a good job, I can afford gas and I really could care less about saving the whales that live off the coast of Madagascar so I am going to get a larger car. I dumped the shitbox and started driving larger cars and my back and legs felt better and I was much more happy.
That beige color seems to have been popular as most that I saw on the road were/still are that color.
Someone in their 50’s in year 2000 were a different generation than the typical Century buyers. More likely in an SUV or Accord than a biege Buick.
And GM sold “b88t tons” of these to rental fleets, because they were cheap.
If they were as “popular” as some say, then why did GM go bankrupt?
Buick is back where is was meant to be, upscale premium cars, not “low calorie 4:00 PM dinner specials”
My father was 52 years old and my mother 50 years old in 2000. That year they were driving a 1996 Buick Century and a 1993 Ford taurus wagon both of which were bought new. 3 years later my mother was t-boned by a drunk while driving the Century. She walked away without serious injury. They then replaced the car with a 2003 Sable wagon and then when the 1993 Taurus died in 2009 they bought a new 2009 Taurus to replace it.
My folks would never own a SUV (in fact they were offered an Exploder as a loaner car by the drunk’s insurance company and they turned it down as they saw no reason to have it and settled for a sedan.)
my folks were just the type of 50 something folks that would by a 2000 Century and might have actually done so except they got a good deal on the Sable.
My generation (Gen X) was the generation that would buy SUVs
As for “If they were as “popular” as some say, then why did GM go bankrupt?”
That is because instead of investing the profits from sales of these cars(and the ones from Pontiac and Chevy) they were spent on big gas guzzling SUVs instead of realizing that like the era of muscle cars, the good times gcould not go on for a long time. In a same vain as what killed off the muscle cars, gas prices and insurance prices went through the roof and the great recession killed off the rest of the sales of them. That is why GM went under not because of the W-body Century.
One thing I have noticed is whether or not loads of Centurys were sold to rental fleets or to frugal seniors, there are still large amounts of them on the road in varying conditions. By contrast the Toyota Camry(97-2000) and Honda Accord(1998-2002) that were sold around the same time seem to be getting scarcer everyday. In my neck of the woods(the MD/DC area) they are getting hard to find and I live in an area that people love Accords and Camrys. The 97-2000 Camrys with the 3.0 V6 suffered from sludge issues akin to the 2.7l Chrysler engine. The 98-2002 Accord suffered from transmission issues that caused the damn things to lock up on the road. Both cars suffered from questionable QC control in relation to rusting. I have not driven a 97-00 Camry but I have friends that have owned them and confirmed that they were a cheapie step back from the 1992-1996 version.
I owned a 2001 Accord and it felt cheap and really was not of high quality.
Even though the W-Body at the time has sort of bad rust resistance, Camry at the time is even worse.
And I appreciate they never put vinyl seats on the Century at the time, because I didn’t know the seats are vinyl on a ’02 Accord and I really got burned for the heat.
You could get vinyl seats in an ’02 Accord? Ack. Bad move there. Both of the Accords in my family had high-quality cloth seats, with vinyl nowhere to be seen.
Come to think of it, are you sure it wasn’t just low-quality leather? Honda has a long history of offering leather seats in the top model Accord, but it’s also historically been cheap leather that doesn’t age well.
After owing a smaller car as the third car in my life, I never downgrade from full-size ( or 200 in length ) ever, even though I didn’t even hit the drinking age at the time. Fuel economy isn’t really that different neither.
A confession: having recently moved to Florida, and in need of a decent, roomy, reliable and economical used car at a relatively low price point, I started shopping a couple months back. What presented itself as a viable option over and over again? This. (And more than a few Impalas of the same era.) In truth, I was almost tempted. For better or worse, these were good cars, and they did the job…and continue to do so. Fortunately for me, a somewhat more exciting option has presented itself, although I’m not convinced that it will do the job quite as uneventfully as one of these might. But then again I’m still in my 40’s (barely), so I’m thanking the car Gods for a stay of execution.
This is the sentence phrase of the entire comment thread: For better or worse, these were good cars, and they did the job…and continue to do so.
Many drivers just want reliability and comfort and the Buick sure delivered.
There is something enjoyable about the anonymity that these offer, you really can do anything while driving one and no one will notice, its almost as if it had a cloaking device.
Totally nailed it.
My mom’s last car was a White Century, and she loved it because it was familiar, comfortable, easy to drive, and wasn’t a Ford (the nightmarish Taurus she had before was our first and last FMC vehicle). I loved it because it was as reliable as the sunrise. It was a 2003 model purchased in early 2004, and we got a great deal on what was exactly the same car.
Ok, I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here. I’ll disagree with some major points in this article.
Yup, we can agree that the car wasn’t the most exciting, in either style or drive qualities. But, it also has a bunch of things going for it. Generally good build quality. Solid engine and transmission, especially when in Regal trim with the 3800 engine. Good mileage. Comfortable, quiet ride. Touches of perceived luxury, with nicer fabrics/carpet/base sound systems than other competitors. And as a used purchase, great value in that you could get into a solid vehicle for far less than a CamCord with similar reliability. And, relatively easy to work on when repairs were required.
It basically was a “mid-sized” version of what used to be referred to as a great “family car”. And conservative buyers, many of them older, recognized all those qualities..and became some of the most brand-loyal buyers in the business. The profitability of these cars to Buick and GM kept the lights on as GM wrestled with a dramatically changing environment. (By the way, does EVERY Buick article have to focus primarily on its audience’s age? That’s cheap-ass writing. Maybe lets just say Buick focused on its market.)
Could they have updated the car and its style/features? Sure. But it wasn’t a bad package.
Face it, you don’t notice these cars because they’re flashy–they just go about doing what they were designed to do, quietly taking care of their owners after 10, 15, 20 years. They’re good soldiers.
Buick’s elderly owners were an integral part of what kept Buick going through the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Without them, Buick would’ve been dead long ago.
Your comment is just a “cheap-ass” shot. If you think you can write a better article no one’s stopping you, we take guest submissions. Calling the articles that we provide readers with at CC “cheap-ass” is like showing up to a free concert in the park and criticizing the music. If you don’t like it, don’t read it and move on.
I apologize. I over-reacted. And it wasn’t meant at your or other writers here, whose works are well done. But you gotta admit, virtually ever writer at other auto sites comments on the age of Buick’s owners, and it’s generally cast as a negative thing, as though older owners values/needs aren’t as relevant as others.
Again, I apologize. And, because of my inability to clearly express myself, I’ll be far more detailed if I leave any comments in the future.
No worries. It can be hard to express tone through text and not voice.
If I’m reading things correctly, I think the point in mentioning the age of Buick owners is that Buicks are no longer seen as an aspirational vehicle, as they used to be. I’d guess that’s what the Century-and-Regal-off-the-same-body was meant to address.
In 2004 for a business trip to Chicago, I had one of these in that same tan color!
I recall that I liked it very much for the fuel economy and the comfy but non-floaty ride – so much better than the Grand Marquis I rented in times previous.
What I didn’t like was the absolute plainness and lack of any hint of flash that said “Buick” that would upset even the most astute Mennonite for being too bland!
My old 2004 Impala had more style, but I liked them just the same. Good, solid, dependable cars that still ply the roads. In fact, I briefly considered one of these when in the market in 2004, but wound up with my Impala.
As far as that beige color is concerned, show me a 1996-2000 Toyota Camry that is NOT that same color! Perhaps Buick was on to something!
I, too, recall a business trip where I rented an identical beige Century. I drove from North Carolina to West Virginia, and the Buick proved to be a great road car: comfortable, not floaty, powerful enough, and completely devoid of any major faults.
In fact, for years afterwards, I had in the back of my mind that in the event that I suddenly needed another car, I’d consider a lightly-used Century.
If I needed a cheap, reliable used car in a hurry, I’d look at these and Tauruses. These were reasonably well made, and were made by the bazillions so parts should be cheap.
It seems like lots of these got “cabriolet tops” and gold kits around here…
I’d drive one as a throw-away/beater but couldn’t imagine why anyone would have bought one new.
Nailed it, Berndan. I recall actually liking these when they first came out. A breath of fresh air after the box Century that came out in late 1981. I still find the styling to be pleasing if not exciting. But after “doing time” in my mother’s Lacrosse, I cannot imagine actually wanting to drive one of these. Numb just sums it all up.
GMs failure to change these killed it in it’s demographic. The older folks who bought these were from the generation who traded cars every few years and almost never kept a car over 100k miles. Buick failed to offer them something new. After 5 or 6 years in the same car, everyone wants something new and better, but with a Century, you just picked a different color. A Camry became the car of choice for more than a few Century owners.
I actually like the 82-96 Century more than these, when I started selling Buicks we had a few of the 96’s left, and to me, they felt more “substantial”, there was a heavier 70-80’s quality to the materials, the door handles were the metal “flipper” style that GM used since 1973, the 80’s dash had more flair than the blobby 97 style dash. The 96’s felt instantly comfortable to anyone than grew up with 70’s GM cars.
The flipper handles debuted even earlier in 1971 i think, on the Vega. Or were those different? These became used on most GM products for two decades, but I wonder what it was that made them reluctant to use them on their luxury models like Cadillacs. The big Olds and Buicks stuck with the old pushbutton door handles for the ’71-’76 generation while Chevy and Pontiac used liftbar flippers, but all but Cadillac went to the liftbars for the downsized ’77s. But when those were replaced with the FWD C and H bodies in the mid to late ’80s, they went back to the old pushbutton handles even for Pontiac which hadn’t used them since 1970.
I forgot about the Vega, it did have them first, I was thinking the Colonnades were the first ones, the pushbutton style handles do feel more substantial than the flipper ones, and they have a better area to grab when your pulling the whole door open.
On an interesting note, the Secret Service requested to change the door pulls on Presidential Limos like the 93 Fleetwood and the 2000-2004 DeVilles from the flip style ones to the push button style handles because they provide a ready made handle to grab when your running alongside the limousine.
Ease of opening the doors from the outside in an emergency supposedly is why liftbar/flipper handles have fallen out of favor and replaced by handles with a stationary loop you can grab whilst pulling the door open, independent of the latching mechanism, just as with most ’50s and ’60s exterior door handles. I myself broke a GM flipper handle on a Pontiac Phoenix trying to open a sticky door on an icy winter day.
I believe those handles actually began life on the 1970 F-Bodies.
Derp, you’re right!
Some of the full-size ’71 B-bodies had the new-style handles too (Impala, Caprice, Catalina, Grand Ville, etc.)
I have come to agree with you, Carmine. Today, I would take a pre-97 hands down. My daughter is lobbying to buy a car, but wants something “cool”. A 94-96 Century with the 3.8 is one older car that I could see as a good one for her.
The 97-up models are friggin everywhere here in the midwest.
I’ve been snooping around CL looking for clean one from time to time, though the last vintage of these is either a 2.2 4 banger or the 3100 SFI V6, there hasn’t been a 3.8 in these since Regan was Prez, the best you could do for a while was the baby 3800 “3300” V6.
See, that’s what always stops me before I get started with any 90s-up GM car. There was such a variety of engines, some good, some OK and some awful. Sometimes it seems like the number of different V6s that came out of GM exceed the number that came out of Chrysler and Ford combined. I know 307 and 3.8 = good, and tend to stick with what I know. I suppose that if I came across the right car, I would have to do some really fast research.
Chevy sold its Regals and Centuries both as Impalas. At one point, I was shopping for used cars, and I considered the Regal, Impala, and 3800 powered Intrigues and Grands Prix (and really the larger LeSabre and Park Avenue) for having good comfort and room with a low cost of ownership. Both low purchase prices and low operating cost still makes them seem like a smart choice if all you’re looking for is “completely acceptable.” Along those same lines, I now drive a Hyundai Elantra. Most of Buick’s geriatric buyers would buy a Century, LeSabre, or Park Avenue based on their size/price needs and wants. They were sturdy, comfy, and thrifty. A 60+ buyer is seldom seeking much more.
I remember looking at eBay listings for these, and finding one Century that had the high-watt Monsoon-branded audio that was common in Regals, but which I don’t remember seeing in another Century listing.
I own one in pewter color. It is dependable and the only issue I have, and is common for this year Buick Century, is that the transmission’s pressure sensor, goes bad causing it to slip when it gets hot in warm weather and is not a cheap fix. And the power window lifts rely on cables that wrap around a nylon pulley which eventually gets cut through and binds to a point of quit working.
It does have good power and pickup.
Numb is a good word for these Buicks which still seem to be in abundance around here. And while seniors still seem to be the more common owner I’m also seeing mullet wearing rednecks driving rust stained Centurys into industrial areas. I guess they make good second cars or work cars. Certainly very affordable right now.
A good friend of mine was a Buick guy for years, and his last Buick was a 2000 Regal, in that maroon color. He got it in 2003, after his ’94 LeSabre was stolen, and from then until 2013 he put well over 200,000 miles on it. That was the car in which he drove from Michigan to California without even stopping to sleep. He made countless trips to Florida in that car to visit family. That car did a 140-mile round trip commute three times per week for years after he got established in his career.
What finally did the car in, at 270,000 miles, was rust. The car had finally become structurally unsound, and when he found out he was soon to be a new father he decided it was finally time to get a newer car. The thing still ran like a Swiss watch, though.
And the reason he’s not a Buick guy now? He doesn’t like their new cars. He finds them too flashy, too small, and unbecoming of what a Buick is supposed to be. He’s 33, and he will readily admit he wants an “old man” car. He wants quiet isolated reliable motoring. He wound up buying a 2007 Taurus, and he loves it. Honestly, if GM just made the 1994 LeSabre and called it a 2016, he’d go buy one tomorrow I think.
It’s always talked about how Buick sales dropped during the mid 2000’s. Well fast forward to today and none of there 3 sedans set the sales charts on fire. In fact I believe the LeSabre in the early 2000’s outsold all 3 current Buick’s combined if I’m not mistaken. Buyers shift in taste, the onslaught of SUV/CUV’s, the diminishing popularity of the 4 door sedan and so many more competitive choices has seen to much of that.
I rented one of these in ’97 or ’98 when it was still fairly new, one with the red cloth interior. I appreciated the bench seats, an interior that wasn’t beige or grey, and the general comfort, but overall the car wasn’t so much geriatric as yet another GM fleetmobile in the tradition of the Malibu of that era (which of course I also rented, and which has a similarly bland demeanor). I remember the Century mostly because of where I drove in it (an old haunt in Castine, Maine that was, let’s say, quite significant to 13-14 year old me), not the car itself.
I sold these new, and they were always popular, I don’t remember selling one to anyone under the age of 55, they were very easy to sell, especially in this color, silver and blue were popular too. They came in 2 flavors, Custom and Limited, we sold more Customs than Limiteds, and that seems to translate to all Century sales overall, I see far more Customs than Limiteds for sale and on the road,. The Custom came with a pretty decent compliment of standard equipment, the Limited however, could be optioned out to baby Park Avenue status, leather, dual power seats, moonroof, automatic dual zone a/c, they even had courtesy lights in the doors.
I ordered them too, so we usually kept a compliment of mostly Custom trim Centurys with a few Limiteds, about 80/20. Customers for these did vary, even within a similar age demographic, some just wanted a base Custom, some wanted a luxed up Limited, we even kept a few 0 option Customs for the real skinflints, I remember selling one to a couple in their late 70’s, they traded in a 93 ultra base Taurus L sedan with only 16,000 miles on it, I remember the owner about to leave the dealership with his brand new Century, he thanks me, I thank him for his business and the he rolls up the window and lights up a cigarette in his brand new Century while its still parked in front of the dealership, that sticks with me even today.
One of the others I sold was a loaded up Limited with leather, in this champagne color, to a retired National pilot, he traded in a boxy 88 New Yorker(Mark Cross…ooohhhh) for the Century, I followed him and his wife back to their house so I could collect the title to the smoky Mitsubishi V6 Chrysler, and a check for the difference, because ALL OF THESE were sold for CASH, none of the customers ever financed one, they just wrote checks. This customer was a blast, first thing he did when we go to his house was start mixing martinis at about 3pm, we had a few martinis, exchanged paperwork and got his personal check and I drove the old New Yorker back to the dealer.
Carmine, since you were out there selling them, if Buick had put the vinyl tops and wire wheel covers and slipspears of extra chrome, would that have chased away the customers or brought more in. As the nineties progressed there was nobody still doing this. That would seem to be a better route than what they did.
My hunch is that the owners who wanted that kind of flash stepped up to the Park Avenue anyways. The Century was the perfect no-nonsense, conservative point-A-to-point-B transportation appliance, basically an American version of the Camry for the 55+ crowd.
Park Avenues did not offer those details by then. Except perhaps dealer installed in FL. I also don’t think Camrys were such old people cars yet in 1997 although the new one that year had gotten hit by a Tempo stick.
We did a couple of Centurys and LeSabres with canvas tops, but they didn’t sell that quickly, I never liked aftermarket roofs, if they had been offered from the factory, maybe. Century buyers were usually not that interested in bric-a-brac, at least on their cars…..
These were some of the last cars you could order with factory whitewalls on the Century, LeSabre and Park Avenue, I always mae sure to order a few of those, that was an easier sell than the tops. The wires would have probably attracted a few buyers, we still had wires available on the LeSabre until 1999 or so.
Just one tiny error. 92 was the last year for the “L” model Taurus. Last year I cataloged a 92 L in mint condition in Mesquite Tx and back in Feb of this year a totally trashed (not one body panel was undamaged) 92 L at a police impound auction. It brought $25.
Funny you mention the smoking Mitsubishi. In the 90’s anytime I was running around town, and saw a car leaving a cloud of oil haze, I automatically knew it was a Mitsu powered Chrysler and I was never wrong.
A 40-something friend of mine was given a very clean, low mileage example of this car by her maiden Aunt, who had become too old to drive anymore.
She was quite pleased by her Aunt’s generosity…at first. Two months later she described her free car as “Terminally DULL”.
When a red light running Ford pick up truck t-boned her, activating every air bag in the car, she happily took her insurance check and used it as a down payment on a new Honda Accord.
She described the new Honda as “quite lithe and lively” compared to the Buick.
P. S. : Great article, Brendan.
The comments about no “wood” trim in this Buick interior struck me. Fake wood is so…BROUGHAM. Its recent resurgence may be a signal that a return of vinyl roofs, opera windows and carriage lamps may be next. When the new Chrysler 300 was introduced ten years ago, it seemed to all be coming together but the SUV craze has blunted the Neo-Brougham trend.
Only partly kidding…
Actually, the Custom had no wood, the Limited had some wood trim accents sprinkled around the interior.
Yup, a good summary Brendan. Nothing wrong with selling a bazillion boring cars if that’s what keeps the lights on at the factory.
A 65-ish friend just bought another used Buick, because they’re decent cheap transportation and have usually been well looked after. This leaves him more time and money to spend on his 56 Chevy and 32 Ford.
I always thought that the tell-tale sign that this whole era of Buick was designed with an older buyer in mind was the size of the numbers on the radio display, they were seriously large and readable.
It’s from a Buick LeSabre. The buttons are huge enough for everyone to see. And look at the buttons for parking lights and headlights, that’s almost the biggest button on car over the world, besides horn sometimes.
I may be mistaken but I think that head unit was also used in Oldmobiles and maybe even Pontiacs in that era.
We had that radio/CD/tape combo in our ’95 Park Avenue, the first year the newly enlarged radios were available, and the presense of both CD and cassette players was a major selling point at a time when both formats were in frequent use, but most aftermarket stereos could only play one or the other. The large buttons and excellent ergonomics were appreciated even by me in my 20s, as were the steering wheel duplicate buttons for common functions. But making the clock double as the radio station display (or CD track number) was an incredible cheap-out; you could see either the time or what radio station you were listening to but not both.
Seemingly a mix of Mazda Zedos 9, Opel/Vauxhall Omega, Jaguar X type and a big sofa, and I guess that colour suits its image perfectly
Mr. Regular recently referred to the boxy Chryslers as “Benjamin Button cars” – as they get older, their drivers get younger. That applies to these Buicks too, and I suspect most car guys wouldn’t have bought one new but would happily recommend them as used cars with good basic mechanicals, cheap repair costs and usually careful first owners (unless the first owner was Avis or National)
My brothers wife had one of these until it was scrapped due to rust, probably one of the youngest people I ever knew that drove one of these
I see a lot of references to ‘failure’ with this car, and thats completely tone deaf. This car did what it was designed for. Sure its bland, unexciting, boring, even ugly. But then its not ‘for me’ and never was. Theres something very honest and refreshing about a basic appliance designed for old people and marketed as exactly that. The demographic that this car was designed for came in droves and the fair number of these things still out there says that they perform well and will hold up in their intended role. If excitement is what you were after, GM could sell you a Camaro, Firebird, or Corvette.
Whats insulting is Toyota’s weak sauce Camry being sold as ‘bold’ or ‘exciting’ when the actual product is about as far from that as you can get. Theres little to no measurable difference in a Camry vs this Buick but at least one wasnt trying to lie to you.
Thank you, exactly, don’t complain because Farina doesn’t taste like Sriracha, when its sold as Farina and vice versa, don’t blow sunshine up my you know what telling me Farina is “grounded to the ground” and exciting, when its warm watery cream of wheat….
There has never been anything “bold and exciting” about family cars. They are designed to move people and stuff from place to place, and do it in reasonable comfort and cost.
As much as we love to talk about Hemi Chargers, 99% of the Mopar stuff I have ever seen had either a Slant Six or a 318. Most Chevrolets I saw growing up at 283 and Powerglide. They were panned as “boring appliances” even then, but they got the job done.
I have driven plenty of the Century of this vintage, and they are a good family car. I have also driven many Camry’s over the years. They are good family cars.
I agree with that 100%, Canuck. Family cars shouldnt be trying to push excitement, thats contrary to their mission. I think customers would be a lot happier in general if they would identify their priorities and then pull the trigger on what checks the right boxes. MFG’s should be more honest in terms of delivering on what the car’s intended mission actually is. Developing and building a reliable basic car isnt all that tough or expensive, relatively speaking. Cars like this Century and most of Toyota’s lineup arent breaking any new ground and never really have. Simplicity breeds reliability, as does the gentle usage that family sedans generally see.
On the contrary, if instead of throwing billions at misleading and cheesy marketing campaigns and worthless doodads, the money was spent upfront to get the basic bones of a car right then in the long run it would be better for everyone. Contrarily, there would be plenty leftover to throw money at developing REAL performance cars for those of us who want that. Toyota seems to be trying to lurch the camry up into some kind of pseudo performance sedan which is laughable. Frankly, I dont want to share the road with someone who is fooled by this yet has control of a 260 hp Camry. Recipe for disaster.
“As much as we love to talk about Hemi Chargers, 99% of the Mopar stuff I have ever seen had either a Slant Six or a 318. Most Chevrolets I saw growing up at 283 and Powerglide. They were panned as “boring appliances” even then, but they got the job done.”
Absolutely! But its those image building pure performance machines that got the blood pumping and got people talking. Just like right now, the Hellcat is a fraction of a percent of total Charger/Challenger sales. But as any FCA sales rep will tell you, the HC is the best salesman there is. Sales of ALL the LX cars have swelled based on the buzz generated by that car. Reality is, the Challenger Scat Pak 392 is 90% of the car for about 2/3 of the price…
When Buick went upscale, there were cries of “What will seniors now buy?”.
But the 97-05 Century is plainer than a base model Malibu LS, nothing ‘mid lux’ about it. It was just the Buick name that buyers, now over 80, wanted.
But also, seniors of 2015 include the oldest Boomers, who want SUV’s, compacts, trucks, or even motorcycles for retirement, not a blah, beige, tan, marshmellow.
Toyota even admits that the RAV4 may outsell the Camry soon.
Yep, the “older buyer” has changed a bunch in the last decade and change,
Judging from the folks I sold these to, I imagine most Century buyers are now comfortably reclined driving a one seater with no-windows, with similar interior upholstery….
Breaking the “traditional customer” habit is a hard pill to swallow, look at Oldsmobile, I always thought they should have had their own Century style version of the W-body as a Ciera or Cutlass, instead of the Malibu based short lived Cutlass that went nowhere fast. Quitting your established based cold turkey can be dangerous.
Buick played it more conservatively, they kept the 3800 and the bench seat option for a generation after this in the 1st gen LaCrosse and Lucerne, even while they offered pseudo sporty V8 CXL and Super option packages. While at the same time, they bridged out into new markets, the Rendezvous was an unexpected hit that helped amortize some of the costs of the dud Aztek, leading to new models like the 2nd LaCrosse and the Enclave, which has probably done more to enhance Buicks image and lower the average buyer age than any other car its launched in the last 15 years.
Buick should have stayed with their T-Type and Grand National image, and let Olds be the “Golden Oldie” brand to ride off in the sunset.
After years of crushed velour pillowed seats, to suddenly be “Import Fighter” didn’t work. The Aurora sold to 98 Regengy owners, and the Intrigue was just a Lumina with different badges.
Thought they may have shared a common W-body, I assure you that the Intrigue was NOT a Lumina with different badges, that’s a pretty ignorant comment.
The Intrigue was Oldsmobile’s “Century style version of the W-body,” though. The N-body Cutlass was just a placeholder until the Intrigue came out in ’99. Why they couldn’t have went straight from the Cutlass Supreme and Ciera to the Intrigue in ’97, I have no idea.
Olds got really attractive styling in their final years, though. Everything from the ’95 Aurora onward looked great, not to mention distinct from Buick and Pontiac.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/automotive-history-capsule-the-last-oldsmobiles-falling-with-style/
And later Intrigues had a superior engine in the form of the LX5. Definitely the best effort of any W-body, not that it’s saying a whole lot.
No, the Intrigue didn’t offer a bench seat and was tuned for a sportier ride and handling than the Century, it was closer to the Grand Prix/Regal GS.
What I meant was a Century style Intrigue, i.e, a bench seat version with the 3100 or 3800, softer ride, a real midsized replacement for the Ciera, like the Century.
“Buick should have stayed with their T-Type and Grand National image”
I liked those Buicks. My dad’s first car was a ’67 Gran Sport. Basically a more refined/better built Chevelle or GTO but with all of the ballz left intact. Buick used to have a performance image at one point, even if it sold lower end appliances also. But the overall perception of a marque tends to be reflected on its most desirable models.
Quote: “I’m a senior citizen”. Over the age of 65. This to be my grandma’s car”. Inoffensive and unexciting. Sterilizing taupe and grey interiors. Numb. Silver and beige paint jobs. Soft seats. Mediocre volume base engine. Numb steering and mediocre handling. Cheap interior plastics with monotone bland colors. Blends in with the scenery. Wow that sounds just like today’s substitute Buick the Toyota Camry. Not a day goes by that I don’t see a beige or silver or white Camry LE complete with plastic hubcaps, basic 4 cylinder humming under the hood with a 70-90 year old grandma or grandparents behind the wheel. Surprise they are cheap used too and all over the place. Typical 2014 LE sedans are rowed up in stacks at our local dealer for $13995!
Yup, and they sell a gazillion of them, too.
You make a good point. Camry is the new Century. For all the effort Toyota is expending in marketing the Camry as exciting and sporty, it’s become the Official Old Person’s Car.
Our ’03 3.1L is still going strong at almost 13 years and 130K and now belongs to son in college.
On the plus side:
Inexpensive. Bought it at 20K miles for $9500.
Mileage: Decent – 22/30. Yes, 30 on the highway.
Ride: Quiet, comfortable.
On the negative side:
Decontented. Really?? no armrest in rear?
Poorly positioned vents. All Buicks should have dual climate too. In another age this would have been a mid level Chevy.
Decade old dissolving intake gasket issue. GM indifference.
For me, any gold Buick says “Im going to go 10 mph below the limit”, age don’t matter, Ive seen old folk too terrified of 40, and new folk too busy texting.
Corollas just say “I LOVE MY CAR, DO NOT MOCK IT!!!”.
Any 90s Honda: “Yah bro I jus dun a Tegy stage 3 swap to go with ma xeeenon light mod and mah stage 3 clutch n ebay springs.
Camry: “Im gonna do 80mph so stay putta the way!, oh but around town let me be slow”.
Pontiac “Step down, I have the right of way”, this is after a Sunday where a relative was cut off by two of them.
When I was driving my slant six Volare on the interstate at 55mph, even military truck was faster than me. He didn’t believe it at first, but after following me for few minutes, he overtook me gradually. During that trip, the only car slower than me was a ’00s Century driven by a senior with grandchildren on the backseats.
Friends and family members often ask me for car buying advice, as much as I am loathe to give it. For a cheap car, the Century is my go to at the moment. They are comfortable, reasonably reliable and there are loads of parts out there. A nice example can be had for $2000 in these parts, and since were indeed grannywagons, they tend to be in pretty good shape.
These cars almost never were retailed, at least here in Soviet Canuckistan. Almost all were fleeted, and that made them very attractive buys when they came on the retail market.
Brendan is correct, however. An Accord or Camry of the era is a much better car. With used cars, quality is easy to ascertain: whatever is worth more is a better car. The market has no skin in the game, it’s all about moving metal.
The only trouble with used Camcords are the shadey sellers, due to the popularity of both models its common to see “ex-salvage” examples with cheapo repairs.
Buicks, due to being fairly unpopular, often go for less and are still held together with whatever GM used years ago.
Now an elderly owned Camry with a reasonable price tag? Thats gold, but about as rare as gold too.
For those popular used cars, it’s a horrible buying experience. Edge, Camry are two typical examples. Private sellers, or dealers have enough sick ways of selling those cars.
By compare, seller of a fairly presentable Dodge Aries is pretty decent these days.
You’ve pretty much nailed it. This car should have come with a wheel chair in the trunk in place of a spare tire, along with a AARP logo etched into the window glass. My 90+ yr. old mother still saw “Buick” as an upper class car and couldn’t understand the Automatic trans lever being mounted anywhere except on the column where god intended it to be! Naturally she drove this exact car in the beige color, until her driving days were over. It was the perfect car for her. Prior to my mother purchasing this car used it had been thru 3 owners , the first being a rental car company.
I always am reminded of a joke I saw one time whenever I see these cars.
Q:”Why are they called Buick Centuries?”
A:”Because that’s how old the driver’s are.”
In fairness, I still see lots of these cars around in Southern California, most are still senior-living centers on wheels, others have been relegated to cheap beater status for high-school kids who aren’t spoiled enough to get a brand new Audi. These, along with the comparable LeSabre and Regal, are always still puttering along and I can guess that they are reasonably reliable cars that will last a lot, no matter how little or how much abuse and neglect they receive. Problem is, these cars are also rather boring, there’s nothing really that draws me into them. The styling, the drivetrain, the interior, all seem like attempts to create the most safe, milquetoast, boring car ever. Given the target demographic, I understand the thinking, but when I remember what Buick used to make just a couple years ago, I just muster up nothing more than a “meh”.
Although, I will admit, first car shopping, I was looking at Buicks on CL. Though I was also looking at First-Gen Park Avenues, Reattas, and Grand Nationals as well. Kind of glad I didn’t elect those as set in stone options I needed to test drive.
A young coworker of mine used to have the exact Century at the top, in the same shade of beige – and yes, she inherited it from a deceased relative, although I think it was a great-aunt instead of a grandmother.
It was pretty much the epitome of the saying that “a GM car will run bad longer than most cars will run at all”. The AC was broken, not all the doors and windows worked, but it still ran.
It ended up getting totaled after someone rear-ended her and sandwiched it between their car and the one in front of her.
These cars – and Buicks in general – are everywhere in China. It’s certainly the only place I’ve ridden in a Buick in the last quarter century. Whatever GM is doing to market them over there is working. As an aside, Peter Egan, the Road &Track columnist who is a benchmark for Anglo/Euro car enthusiasm, bought a used front-wheel-drive Buick (full size, not a Century) a while back and wrote about its blend of comfort and fuel economy in glowing terms. And while he’s not young, he still spends time in Jags and on Nortons. Maybe the Buick provided a pleasant break from all that excitement.
I always liked Peter Egans columns, they were fun to read and well written, It would drive me crazy though, sometimes, when he would buy an American car and then he would write about how “everything worked” and how everything he fixed “stayed fixed” , I would almost scream at the magazine pages “that’s how thing are supposed to be dummy!!!”
This may be going too far back, but are you recalling the Buick Egan bought as a “salt car” sometime in the late 90’s and then ended up keeping longer than expectected? I think that was a LeSabre. I do recall his being very pleasantly surprised with the thing overall.
He was always my favorite part of Road & Track, back when I was a subscriber. Need to find some of his writing again.
It was a champagne Park Avenue from what I recall, the FWD ones. In the last couple of years he bought a DTS, similar to one getting grilled in another article here.
THIS is a Buick Century.
The Buick Century seems like the last gasp of the mighty GM marketing machine. It’s the car people would buy who would have been better off with a Toyota Camry, but still couldn’t stomach buying non-domestic, particularly when they could get a ‘prestige’ GM marque for the same money. The only problem was that anyone under 55 had long ago gotten wise to GM’s shenanigans. They would buy a Camry (or Avalon, if they had money) instead of a Century without hesitation.
Carmine put it well. I doubt the older Century buyers did much, if any, cross-shopping, and certainly not with any non-domestic brands. Their only other car of interest to them would be that other geezer-mobile, a Mercury Grand Marquis.
It’s also easy to see why a lot of these Centurys are still out on the road, given that many would have been low-mileage and well-kept retiree cars.; a good buy for younger people without much money or credit.
I had the sister car to this geriatric one, the much more powerful Regal GS. Mine was a 1998, and that Supercharged 3800 engine really performed well. In the picture below, you can barely make it out ‘curbside’ behind my newly purchased (at the time) 2007 Mustang. The year was 2008 in like February. This Buick was anything but geriatric, but I will admit that the Grand Prix GTP (see my reply to the Pontiac Bonnevile post for that car’s picture) that I traded in on the Mustang in the photo was a much better handling car that the Buick. And while the Grand Prix and the Buick Regal were the same off the line acceleration wise, the governor was set higher on the GTP than the GS, presumably due to the tires that each car came with new. (126 vs 110 respectively with the same drive train – oh, and not that I would ever admit to having tested this out of course ;o)
Damn it was electronically limited to 110? My have the times changed. I’ve gotten faster than that in a turbo-3 cylinder MINI Cooper hardtop.
Yeah, the Buick Regal GS was limited to 110; the Grand Prix GTP was limited to 126. The former came with Goodyear 225-60-16 “LS” tires, while the later came with the “RSA” tires in the same size. I speculated that the difference in the governor setting was due to the speed rating difference between those tires. Of course it could be the demographics as mentioned in the article. The Buick was for an older crowd than the Pontiac. In fact, I bought the Grand Prix from a dealer. I bought the Buick from my Dad when he was done with it…. But demographics be damned! My Dad now has a faster ‘stang than ME!!!
My 76 460 powered Grand Marquis tripped one of those side of the road speed minders at 122 back in 04. So a Regal could outrun me, but not the Century. Cool!
After reading nearly all the preceeding comments, AND, of course, the article, it’s my idea that Buick should have probably sold only the Regal version of this model. The Regal was more along the lines of a “true” Buick….with AND without that supercharged engine. But then I am a bit biased, as my Mom’s older sister owned a Regal GS and proudly told us of the many different police officers that her car and her lead foot would bring her way. She bought that car to replace a turbocharged Chrysler LeBaron station wagon (notice the trend) and would never have considered the “similar” Century. But when her lease was up she considered an Audi with AWD but bought a Subaru instead. She might have stayed with Buick if there had been a newer/updated Regal in 2003-2004.
BTW, I do think the Century that preceded the featured model was a fairly decent car, as long as it had a V6 engine. And the Lecrosse that replaced this Century looked like a barely half-hearted update.
The 1st gen LaCrosse sort of did combine both this and the Regal, there still was a cloth bench seat 3800 version available for grandpa, and there was at least an attempt to market to younger buyers with the 3.6 V6 CXS and V8 Super versions.
The styling of the 1st gen LaCrosse was a bit challenged…..
I maintain one of these cars (a 2003) for my senior-citizen MIL, in the exact same color as the one at the top. From a maintenance perspective, I actually like this car much better than my 2001 Lesabre (on which just about everything electrical has already failed by +/- 100K miles, and currently sits in my driveway with a missing dashboard – dead radio – blown rear air struts, and two inoperative window regulators).
The Century that I maintain has over 200K miles on the original drivetrain and it still runs and drives as new. The paint is even holding up very well so the car still looks nice.
Typical problems encountered recently: fuel tank vent valve clogged with dust (stupidest GM decision ever to place vent solenoid right over the LR tire with no air filter) making it impossible to fill the gas tank, and intermittent in the front ABS wheel speed sensor circuit (ABS fuse pulled for now).
If you need cheap, basic transportation that is easy to work on and has plentiful, inexpensive repair parts, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend one of these cars if it has been taken care of.
Wow, reading the comments you would think that Brendan said something really controversial in this article.
Absolutely Sean, it is incredible that so many people are jumping on Brendan to point out the car is good/adequate/functional/reliable – which is exactly what he said!
There are many people who have said that GM should have kept Pontiac not Buick, and point to cars like this as one of the reasons.
Thanks for noticing 🙂
Hey hey hey……I have a Volvo XC70. Mine says that I needed a wagon and not an SUV to use as my dog hauler! Well, that and I have had a couple in the past of other Volvos and sort of understand them. Having the ability to wrench on them helps, too, as does buying parts online rather from the stealerships!
The Century? NEVER!!!!
Haha, my description of the XC70 was meant in a positive light. Volvo wagons are for people with taste.
Your take on the Century is dead on, the only person I know who had one of these got it from his Mother in Law’s estate, and it looked very out of place next to his Nissan Leaf and Think City which is why it was traded on a Subaru Impreza. As a transportation appliance it was actually good but so beige it made a Camry feel like an Alfa Romeo.
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.