(first posted 9/9/2015) Sometimes I wonder, if I grew up in America, would I be as big a fan of General Motors? I wonder this because as I look at these pictures of the front-wheel-drive, A-Body Buick Century and Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, my blood starts to boil. Let me share with you why these humdrum cars make me so angry.
First, a clarification: early Century and Ciera sedans, coupes and wagons earn no such ire from me. The first front-wheel-drive A-Bodies were a smart repackaging of the trouble-prone X-Bodies, and while not perfect by any stretch, they showed that GM could make a modern, front-wheel-drive intermediate that could appeal to the masses.
Then, the 1986 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable came along and blew them away. Ford’s new intermediate had all-independent suspension, capable dynamics and utterly modern styling. Ford had been in big trouble early in the decade, but they were back with a vengeance. GM, meanwhile, had been shedding market share and the red ink was starting to spill thanks to the cavalcade of poor business decisions under my least favorite General Motors CEO, Roger Smith.
New intermediates – the GM-10 cars – were in the pipeline during the mid-1980s, but they were delayed and delayed and development was mismanaged (you can read more in my article on the GM-10 Buick Regal). By the time they arrived in 1988, they came only as coupes despite a market that was clearly far more inclined towards sedans, as evidenced by the success of the Ford Taurus and GM’s own A-Body cars. Sedan GM-10s took two long years to arrive, and Buick’s Regal sedan was delayed a further year.
The GM-10 delays were unacceptable but by the time they arrived, although they weren’t the Taurus-beaters GM had hoped for, they weren’t clunkers. Greater effort had been put into differentiating the Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Pontiac versions, too. At this point, GM should have cancelled the A-Body Century and Ciera. Indeed, the Pontiac 6000 and Chevrolet Celebrity were dead after 1991, having been directly replaced. But GM was seduced by the profitability of the A (for Ancient) platform and their continued sales performance. Perhaps there were political reasons, as was common with GM, like a need for their particular assembly factories to stay open or an outcry from dealers who appreciated their availability.
The Century and Ciera, though, were redundant. The gas price fluctuations of the 1970s and 1980s had indirectly created a new segment of cars – populated by models like the Ford Tempo and the GM N-Bodies – that were positioned between compact offerings like the Buick Skyhawk and intermediates like the Buick Century. Then, of course, the GM-10 models had arrived and supplanted the Century/Ciera. And yet, the A-Bodies stuck around, priced around $2-3k less than a base Regal or Cutlass Supreme and thus right in the heart of N-Body Skylark and Achieva territory. To make matters more confusing, contemporary advertising positioned the N-Bodies directly against intermediates like the Honda Accord. In effect, GM was offering three intermediate platforms!
Defenders of the Century and Ciera models built during the 1990s will say two things. Firstly, that they were dirt cheap while new. Yes, they were and they were well-equipped for the cash. Maybe that suited a type of undemanding buyer who insisted on a new mid-size car instead of a nice, used one. Perhaps the kind of person who buys all their clothes at Wal-Mart.
Secondly, defenders will praise the Century and Ciera for their excellent performance in JD Power and in reliability and quality rankings. Do you know why they scored so high? GM built them so bloody long! It would have been reprehensible if they didn’t score so high.
In the early 1990s, General Motors was struggling with corporate belt-tightening and had to close numerous factories, so perhaps the easy money generated by the A-Bodies was a bright spot in a dark time. However, it was moronic to keep the Century and Ciera around, especially considering Buick and Oldsmobile were ostensibly two of GM’s more upscale divisions.
GM executives were probably scratching their heads in the 1990s wondering why their $7 billion dollar baby, the GM-10 range, was selling so poorly. They might have blamed the rise of the Taurus, Accord and Camry, but they should have also considered those aforementioned Wal-Mart shoppers. Those buyers – perhaps GM regulars, perhaps equal-opportunity bargain hunters – were going into Buick and Oldsmobile showrooms and picking the car with the smiley face special sticker on it. Never mind the GM-10 was a better car, it cost $2k more. The A-Body had similar cabin space and a few nice, standard features, and for those so inclined, there was also a wagon (most people weren’t so inclined, as the wagon only represented a fraction of A-Body sales.) Those especially frugal buyers may also have been delighted the Century/Ciera’s base engine was a 2.5 (later, a 2.2) four-cylinder.
In an attempt to stop the red ink, the GM-10 cars were decontented in 1995. The Regal interior, for example, was stripped of any brightwork and even of woodgrain trim. It was now almost the exact same plastic-fantastic, monochromatic mess as the Grand Prix, Cutlass Supreme and Lumina. There was less money available for GM to try and distinguish between four lines, especially considering GM-10 sales had been disappointing. Again, blame the A-Bodies: some years, the Century and Ciera outsold their GM-10 stablemates.
The GM-10 wasn’t the only thing damaged by the continued availability of the Century and Ciera. Both Buick and Oldsmobile’s reputations took a hit. Sure, both divisions had reached quite downmarket already with cars like the Skyhawk and Firenza, but both Buick and Oldsmobile were trying to reinvent themselves. Buick had been repositioned as a “premium American motorcar”, and were launching more stylish and distinctive full-size sedans and coupes like the ’92 Park Avenue and ’95 Riviera. Those were premium American motorcars. The Century? Not so much. And because of the sales success of the A-Body Century, GM felt compelled to offer a similarly low-rent version of the second-generation W-Body with the same name.
If the Cutlass Ciera didn’t ultimately kill Oldsmobile’s renaissance, it was definitely a collaborator. GM had seen its once hugely popular mid-priced marque start to slip in the 1980s, and one of their first steps to remedy this was the infamous “Not your father’s Oldsmobile” campaign. That was just the start: Oldsmobile launched their first minivan and SUV in the early 1990s, and they were positioned as more premium offerings than their Chevrolet counterparts. Then, the 1995 Aurora made a splash with its bold styling and upmarket ambitions. GM was trying to turn things around for a dying brand, but by offering the ancient Cutlass Ciera in the same showroom with its low, low price, bench seat and decade-old styling, they were acting like a paramedic performing CPR on their patient as they stabbed them. “Really?” American consumers thought, “You want me to buy an Oldsmobile? Like the one I rented on vacation, or like my Aunt Mabel’s Ciera wagon? And you’re charging how much?!”
As an Australian, I grew up with just one General Motors brand: Holden. That was a lot less to mismanage, unlike the portfolio of brands GM North America was juggling. Holden’s decisions and product weren’t perfect during the 1980s and 1990s – nor for that matter were those of Opel/Vauxhall – but compared to the woes of their American parent, Holden’s issues were almost trivial. Consequently, it was a lot easier to be a cheerleader for our domestic GM division.
Which brings me back to my initial pondering: would I have been such a GM fan growing up in America? Despite my respect for a lot of GM’s offerings during the 1980s and 1990s, on a whole perhaps I would have been too soured on the company, not just for cars like the Century and Cutlass Ciera but also their fresher products that were built with less care. Fortunately, with the significant turnaround they have achieved in recent years – admittedly, aided by bankruptcy proceedings – I believe I would likely have become a GM fan again.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 2002 Chevrolet Malibu – The Truth Hertz
Curbside Classic: 1988-96 Chevrolet Beretta – Latchkey Kid
Future CC: 2012-13 Chevrolet Impala LTZ – The Sun Sets On The W-Body
Last one
Got this mint Cutlass 2dr last week.
2nd shot.
Last one.
I could not agree with the assessment. Tauruses were beautiful but many were trouble prone – one friend’s ’88 spent 8 months out of twelve in the shop. The Olds Cieras in the ’80’s could feel like baby Caddys – and no, those of us that favored the A bodies were not Wal Mart people. I had both the A and W bodies – I liked my Regal (got 426K before trouble found us) but the A bodies got good mileage, and at least with the 2.5’s were trouble free – four Celebs including 3 wagons, each reached nearly 280k, the Ciera wagon was at 537K (no maintenance either) when it gave way from rust. The A bodies lasted long because they represented reliable cars with great value – and were the cars we remembered and liked that our parents drove. The Aurora was beautiful but trouble prone, sadly, or Olds might have come back.
BTW, Corsicas and Berettas were also fine autos, fun to drive for basic cars, comfortable, predictable, and quite reliable. We had a ’94 Corsica 3.1, drove it to 346k before trading for a larger car, and our son not that long ago had a ’95 Beretta, which had over 300k when we bought it, Five years and 40k more before rust finally got it.
We never had head gasket or intake gasket issues with these. Some of the 2.8;s in the late 80’s had some issues. Post 1996 GM;s had intake gasket problems, but so did many other manufacturers. The gas thing only happened on 3.1’s, if ethanol went over 10% because the single oxygen sensor thought the excess oxygen due to alcohol meant it was getting rich and leaned it out – put some non ethanol gas in to help, and the issue went away.
Here’s what it was like for a GM fan in the 80s and 90s.
The next one is gonna be where they hit it out of the park!
Next one comes,,,tons of media hype,,,, it’s better than the last one but nowhere near as good as Ford or the Japanese. This was a cycle that went from 1980 to the gm bankruptcy.
And you could see the hubris of GM in the interior designs. Oh yes you could see them thinking “were gm, #1 in the world, we’ll tell the customers what they want” and you got such akward bizzare unergenomic layouts composed of cheap materials. It was just sad. Best example was the 1990 pontiac grand prix with the hvac controls the size of a phone number pad next to the driver. Horrible to use and horrible design. blegh
Oh and my dad had a 89 Century Wagon. It was the worst car ever. Cramped, hot, 70s interior. Just awful for ridigin in as a kid. I was so happy when he replaced it with a taurus wagon. That was his last GM car. It wasn’t unreliable, just totally unlikeable.
The A Bodies made money….full stop…end of story.
That’s why they were kept around.
Just like Chrysler did in the 80s with the K Cars and L cars, kept them around while the replacements were on the market….because they made money!!!!
Didn’t BMC do the same with these cars/divisional brethren thru the 60s and 70s; Mini, the 1100, 1800. Kept them on the market way too long, and BMC didnt make any money on the MIni or a pittance on the others????
Didnt Europe also do that with the Avenge/Alpine/Horizon used basically the same cars named Rootes-Chrysler-Morris-Talbot?
You’re shocked GM did this with the A body; c’mon!
These are STILL common in local car classifieds, though their numbers are on the decline, mostly rust related issues finally take them off the road. I just saw a decent looking driver with working heat and AC sit around on facebook marketplace for a few days listed at $1200 before selling for $600. Talk about some cheap A-B transportation!
Maybe you just had to be there at the time, but clearly these cars were targeted quite intentionally at the elder market that actually wanted a bench seat, spae, an unfussy quiet engine (3800), comfortable ride, and were priced well yet durable. The gratuitous Wal-Market cracks aside, they were the generation that made this country what is was, for good or ill. America is not Australia, the audience was and is quite different. We knew many folks ages between 50 to 80 who had these cars and loved them, and the fact that they were, in important respects, some of the best-built GM cars of those times was in no small way a factor.
The image GM may have been wanting for Buick and Olds is irrelevant, these folks loved these cars, they WERE the fathers bought the good old Oldsmobiles of yore, and before they passed from the scene they were happy to buy yet another one as they met their needs perfectly, the primary purpose of an automobile. And when done with them have passed them on to 2nd and 3rd owners who have since benefited from that basic goodness, witness the numbers of them still roaming the roads.
FWIW the majority of these didn’t have the 3800, but more commonly the Chevy 60 degree 3.1 v6, 3.3 (Destroked 3800), or the 2.5L 4 cylinder. All of them were very decent un-fussy engines though so your point very much stands.
Yup, exactly. In the 1983 where-are-they-now TV movie “Still the Beaver”, June Cleaver has a Cutlass Ciera. As I was saying: yup, exactly.
I am on my 2nd Ciera. Both were local public auction purchases. 1st was a ’95, 4 cyl.w/55k on it. Did some long overdue maintenance, drove it conservatively and got 25k out of it commuting in a year and a half, while enjoying the virtues of a plush interior, soft highway ride, excellent a/c and fuel economy in the high 20’s. Replaced only because poorly repaired quarter panel rotted away.
The current one is a ’96, 6cyl with 76k. This one was beaten hard, driven until it wouldn’t run, or brake anymore.
Have yet to enjoy it, doing the intake gaskets today.
For $700, inexpensive parts and my labor, I am pleased with myself.
Haven’t cleaned it up as much as I would like yet.
Love these ancient GMs. No problem with them at all. The GM 10 weren´t all that wonder also, and I do not believe that giving up the A-bodies would have done that much by the GM 10. Good cars. Accomplished their many roles with economy and reliability. I´d like to have one.
Love these ancient GMs. No problem with them at all. The GM 10 weren´t all that wonder also, and I do not believe that giving up the A-bodies would have done that much by the GM 10. Good cars. Accomplished their many roles with economy and reliability. I´d like to have one. These car are almost American poo culture Icons…..
The only person I knew who owned one of these was a colleague who was 40 going on 70. Not cognitively, but socio-culturally. Pretty much everyone else I worked with there drove Honda’s or Toyota’s. And that was 35 years ago. But you know, I still see these A Bodies on the street regularly, Olds or Buick, never Chevy or Pontiac. They just keep going. I think for domestic cars of that vintage, only full-size pickups and Ford Rangers are more common here. Certainly not many first or second gen Taurii to be seen.
You’re reminding me of a kid I went to high school with in the early ’90s. He was 17ish going on 45ish: full head of hair, but combed over. Sensible wardrobe with plastic-framed glasses, khakis from Joslin’s, etc. No backpack for him; he carried a briefcase. Drove a ’77 or ’78 Electra…monogrammed on the driver’s door.
Hmm, that does describe me pretty well….
Old(s) soul also would work.
edit: unfussy quiet engine (3800) … 3300 not 3800
GM needed these cars to offset the failures they experienced in other markets. They should not have been available as an Oldsmobile or a Buick, but they were and those brands suffered as a result of carrying an obviously obsolete set of wheels. GM didn’t commit to the GM 10 program and the GM 10 cars weren’t dynamic enough to set themselves apart from these old clunkers. The GM 10 cars were to be an evolutionary design, so they weren’t distinctive. It was wrong for GM to keep the old clunkers around.
GM quality wasn’t strong enough to justify the prices of their newer cars. Everyone knew that GM could build a Century, a Ciera, or a Celebrity – and they were bargain priced. GM attracted people who needed a replacement car, not people who wanted something new and exciting. With every purchase of a GM 10 car, new owners had to wonder why they didn’t buy the car they already knew that was cheaper, and knowing GM, more dependable.
No one bought these old cars because they wanted them. Instead, these cars filled fleets, rental fleets, government fleets, and had the image of a pair of men’s white briefs. GM should not have done that, but they did. Thanks, Roger Smith for making GM as exciting as a pair of my father’s Fruit of the Loom.
BTW: the comments in the original posting about fleets might well have been true in import obsessed California/West coast, but not so much in the South, East, or Midwest. In MD I personally knew at least 4 owners of Century/Cieras who had bought them new. Yes, all of these buyers were over age 50 (one 83), all bought fairly loaded versions, but in the end all of them were quite satisfied with their cars after a number of years. One Dad gave their white ’92 Century 3300 at 78k miles to his daughter, who then proceeded to drive it through both college and grad school, finally selling it with 230,000+ miles and relatively minimal problems after 7 years of satisfactory ownership. I know this because she married my son. Against my advice she then bought a used Audi A4, which she quickly regretted, and now owns a Mazda CX9
Oh dear, GM caught the British Leyland disease! It all sounds scarily familiar.
Keeping a car in production long after its sell-by date (Morris Minor), on the premise that “There’s still a market for it”. Never mind what it says about the company….
Bringing out a larger and dearer new model that doesn’t quite line up with the previous model in the marketeers’ cross-hairs (Austin A60 vs Austin 1800), so the old one remains in production just in case.
Bringing out a new model in the wrong body style first (Princess no-hatch, Ambassador hatch), and taking ages to introduce what the people really wanted.
I’m sure there are other parallels as well; these were just off the top of my head.
Looks like somebody didn’t learn from what had happened over the other side of the pond.
The Cutlass Ciera and Buick Century were older styled cars in the 1990s but they were cheap and reliable. Some people still liked the upright styling. Other car companies have sold two lines of cars in the same “class” before. The 1975-1977 Ford Maverick was sold along side the Granada that was supposed to replace it. The Granada and the Fairmont were both sold by Ford Dealers in 1978 thru 1980.
Another thing to remember was that the W-Body cars of 1988 such as the Cutlass Supreme and Buick Regal were replacing the 1978 vintage RWD Cutlass and Regal sedans and personal luxury cars that were sold through the 1987 model year. The Chevy Monte Carlo which was RWD was technically replaced by the W-Body FWD Lumina. So the A Bodies were good sellers and the early W bodies were kind of a flop for GM. Made sense to keep them in production. By 1996 they did seem “long in the tooth” but the price was right for some buyers and they were a known commodity. Buyers new they had the bugs worked out of them a long time ago. This is important to many buyers. Sometimes living on the “trailing edge” of change is a good thing. Many A Body buyers in the 1990s followed this philosophy.
These cars had one redeeming value to them. They, especially the v6 models were excellent in the snow. I think the combination of the softer suspension, with the heavier v6 made them great for rutted, snowy roads. The ABS brakes also worked well in the ice, compared to the ABS in Ford, or especially Chrysler products of the early 1990s.
My GF had a 1995 Olds wagon with the v6, and not until I got my AWD 2008 Honda Element, did I drive a car that did as well as these. It was defiantly better than my 1998 4 cyl Camry in the snow, and while I did not have snow tires, I always put all season Michelins on my cars, so it wasn’t just the tires in my case.
The Buick Le Sabre’s were also great in the snow too. I always wondered if after the X car fiasco, someone at GM told them to test the cars in the snow first, then on smooth roads.
Twenty years ago I happened to have an ’89 Grand Prix and a ’95 Ciera. So I had the chance to compare them back to back.
Grand Prix: More solid feeling body and chassis. Maybe because it was a two door. Better mpg from the 2.8L. It was a five-speed as well. Smooth clutch. Good seats.
Ciera: More power from the 3.1L. Kind of loose suspension and body. More room from the 4door. Seats were cheap and thin. Auto was nice and when my wife and I drag raced, it blew my doors off though I was driving the GP stick as tight as one could.
Slow car racing is fun!
My opinion was the W-platform GP was the superior car in every way except power.
Well, duh, right?
InThe RWD A bodies were designed under the direction of Bill Mitchell. The Malibu especially shows off the “sheer” look. The FWD A cars (preferably introduced in “84) should have been an update of that look/proportion/stance- sans wire wheels, etc. Major effort should have gone into the interior- benchmarking the Accord: orthopedic bucket seats, broadcloth upholstery, etc. German/Asian look. Under this scenario,no need for the poorly designed GM 10s.
My aunts 91 Ciera would fly on the highway. A/C was stellar.She was a low low mileage driver then; car lasted till 2003.
“… I still see these A Bodies on the street regularly, Olds or Buick, never Chevy or Pontiac..”
Main reason was the B/O were for sale until 1996, many years more than the last C/P models.
And yeah, many in MW were satisfied with them. My cousin liked borrowing my aunt’s Century so much, that her first car at 25 was a used 1990 Ciera, and she kept it 7 yrs.