“When obscure cars are reviewed, Road Test Magazine will review them.” This riff on Buick’s famous tagline could certainly be applied to the January 1971 issue of Road Test Magazine, which featured a drive report on the newly introduced Buick Centurion. William Stopford’s post yesterday provided an excellent overview on Buick’s full-sized “performance” offering of the early 1970s, and this vintage review provides a bit more period detail on the mission and merits of the car when it was new.
Right out of the gate, Road Test noted the Centurion’s positioning as the “sportiest” of the big Buicks. Not that you’d realize it from looking at the car, however—it was simply a handsome full-sized 4-door. GM deserved credit for making their new “fuselage-type” designs for 1971 look smaller than they actually were—in sharp contrast to Chrysler’s Fuselage offerings that unfortunately looked even more gargantuan than their dimensions would dictate. The excellent styling was proof, once again, of the talent of Bill Mitchell and his teams in GM design.
Buick engineers had done their homework with the Centurion. According to Road Test, cornering capabilities were impressive for such a big car, though there was a bit of deterioration in ride isolation due to the suspension set-up. That fact alone made the Centurion a bit of an odd choice for the Buick brand, since the company’s hallmark for decades had been riding comfort. Too bad that Pontiac, which still had some credibility as GM’s “performance” division in the early 1970s, didn’t see fit to make this sort of suspension set-up standard on all its big cars—it would certainly have been a better fit from a brand imagery standpoint.
Weaknesses for the Centurion were typical for full-sized cars at the time: horrific fuel economy and unimpressive braking performance. Road Test noted an average of 9 miles-per-gallon around town during their test period. Even in the era of “cheap” 36¢-per-gallon regular gas ($2.17 adjusted), the fuel economy would have been painful to bear: filling the Centurion’s 25-gallon fuel tank would have cost $9.00 ($54.25 adjusted) and would have been required every 225 miles or so. Well, at least the engine was smooth and powerful, as befitting a Buick… While stopping ability overall was rated as “good,” the Centurion was critiqued for brake fade after repeated hard stops.
Inside the Centurion skewed more “Buick” than “sport” with a cloth-and-vinyl notchback bench seat, plenty of chrome and fake wood trim and no gauges available beyond the speedometer and fuel level. Fairly comical was the lack of interior storage space and a relatively small trunk (17 cubic feet of capacity), given the overall extra-large size of the Centurion.
When packed with options like the test car, the price for the Centurion was $6,678 ($40,167 adjusted), putting it into competition with cars like the Electra 225 Custom, which were considered to be in the “luxury” class. Conversely, the nearly identical-looking LeSabre with the optional 455 V8 and Turbo-Hydramatic could be had for $135 less ($806 adjusted).
There was nothing in the rankings that was especially exemplary: the car was rated as “good” overall. Not bad, but not a reason to buy either, especially given the price. So the Centurion looked like the cheaper big Buick, was priced like the more luxurious big Buick, and offered relatively impressive handling capabilities from a brand never noted for that attribute. Little wonder then that the Centurion never found its niche…
Had – and loved – a ’70 Lesabre HT sedan with the smaller 350. Was plenty of engine for piloting a living room of space. Sadly had to let it go in ’77 when gas became too dear.
The Centurion was always my favorite big Buick of those years – and you hardly ever saw one. LeSabres were everywhere and Electras were fairly common. But the Centurion, not really.
The 4 door hardtop was a really attractive car for this body style, so much more than the sedans.
I remember how the early emission tuning caused fuel mileage to crater in the early 70s. Compression ratios came down and do did fuel economy in those big inch engines. And it all happened right as the cars themselves were getting bigger and heavier. It was a depressing time.
Arguably the best looking B body Buick of the ’71-’76 generation.
Based on the positive sales trajectory in William’s article the other day, I think this car found its niche to a degree. On that basis, I’m not sure why Buick dropped the name for 1974, but scaling back on big car names was prescient as high gas prices and the 1974 recession made the mid-size US domestic car suddenly the “standard size” car when everything was averaged out. The big Buicks with a 455 were simply too expensive to buy and run for a large part of the population.
I’d agree that Pontiac should have made this suspension standard in their big cars. With generally weak sales of large Pontiacs, they needed to experiment with something to better differentiate their offerings from the other large GM cars.
The Centurion was most likely viewed as a nameplate without a purpose. The idea of a “sporty” version of a typical domestic full-size car made no sense by that point. No one – particularly the buyers – expected a full-size car to be remotely sporty by 1974. Even the intermediates, which attracted the younger buyers in those days, were all about luxury.
The 1974 models were planned before the Oct ’73 Oil Embargo. So dropping the Centurion name wasn’t due to “high gas prices and the 1974 recession”.
It just never caught on. Full sizers were either luxury or family cars by this time.
Pontiac had “Radial Tuned Suspension”, in their big cars, however. But even that didn’t evoke “performance” like the 60’s.
Also, in 1973 one of the new colonnade Buicks was the Century, and for that model year both the Century and the Centurion were in showrooms. Not a surprise they planned to get rid of the latter name, considering.
Since the Pre 1973 Century was (until M.Y. 1959) the “sporty” Big Buick, they should have kept Centurion for this car. Then used “Special” for the low-end ,”Regal” for the high-end 73-77 “a” bodies rather than confusingly adding “Century” back into the mix.
Great strides were taken to bring smaller car handling to this big Buick. Too bad lack of body stiffness, relative to modern standards, was probably the only detractor from it in those days.
“Too bad lack of body stiffness, relative to modern standards, was probably the only detractor from it in those days.”
I would add that interior materials were a substantial step down in quality from what Buicks and other GM cars had used even 3 years earlier. Which is too bad, because there was so much good in these.
Thank you for posting this, particularly the information about inflation-adjusted gas prices. To hear people talk today, you’d think that the oil companies were practically giving gasoline away before the first fuel crunch in late 1973.
Adjusted for inflation, however, gasoline prices weren’t that cheap in the early 1970s. Keeping the tank of this Buick full probably would have strained the monthly budget of many middle-class families.
Sales of subcompacts and the intermediates were strong even before the first fuel crunch, and the mileage figures recorded by this Buick show one reason why.
Which helps to explain why Japanese imports were so popular in places like So Cal, where folks already often had long commutes and saw the huge advantages of both a reliable and economical car. For the freeway warriors, cars like this were just not the way to go anymore.
Most middle class families got full size cars with 350 ci motors, not the 455 in the test car. But, mpg’s were declining with emission controls and added weight.
Hence the rise in mid size family car sales in 70’s.
Longer commutes and more driving in general led to demand for not only better MPG, but more reliability, too.
Very interesting car; I’d love to take one for a spin and see how it compares to my experience with its land-yacht contemporaries.
I’m seriously impressed that the rear seat included shoulder belts!
When I see this style of Buick, I think Kojak. Wikipedia says he drove a 73 Century Regal 455 on the show, later upgraded to a 1975 model year. Big old boat car chases, yeah!
I can still vividly recall seeing Kojak’s Century busting down the street at high speed, wallowing up and down like crazy, consistent with Buick’s typical soft suspensions.
I cannot come up witb a reason to buy a Centurion…especially at the shocking price. Honestly…in 1971, for that money, gimme a 300.
Biggest shocks to my modern sensibilities:
1. 12 month/12,000 mile warranty
2. 0-60 in 10.3 seconds from 455 cubic inches
3. Two stripe whitewall tires!
That’s about the same 0-60 as a Prius-V. Now the fuel economy . . .
And drum brakes in the rear!
Chrysler was so impressed with Centurion that the 1974 Dodge Monaco and Plymouth Fury look familiar to the Buick.
1974 Dodge Monaco…….
……..1974 Plymouth Fury
Looks like an alternative design study for the Buick!
A transmission leak after only 500 miles of use? Wind leaks despite copious amounts of foam sealing? Brake fade accompanied by smoke after 5 stops? High speed miss? E-brake pedal being interfered with by electrical stuff? Oh GM, why do you taunt us so?
Interestingly, the performance specs are almost identical with my Nissan Note
Buick Nissan
0-60 10.3 10.3 (this is what caught my eye first)
1/4 17.1 / 80 mph 17.7 / 79 mph
top 114 mph 116 mph – at least in mine 🙂
There was a note that mpg increased by 5 mpg on the highway. 14.5 mpg isn’t bad for the boats of the time. Tune the carb, set the timing advance curve properly, and advance the camshaft back to 1970 specs and you might get 2 more.
I wouldn’t mind owning this boat, and it’s not yet on the collector’s radar, so finding an affordable one is a possibility. And that 450 ft/pounds of torque would feel awesome!
There was a note that mpg increased by 5 mpg on the highway. 14.5 mpg isn’t bad for the boats of the time. Tune the carb, set the timing advance curve properly, and advance the camshaft back to 1970 specs and you might get 2 more.
Good luck with that. The carb was ‘tuned’ from the factory; increasing timing undoubtedly gave you ping, and the camshaft wasn’t just retarded; it was a different grind.
You’d need premium gas, but there was plenty of room for improvement in the carb and distributor. They had low compression, so timing could be bumped considerably.
I used to have a book about funeral coaches/hearses, and there was a reference somewhere in there about a coachbuilder using the Centurion round emblem as an interior trim piece in some hearses later in the 70s. I don’t think the hearses were even Buick-based, but the book went missing several years ago and I don’t recall exactly.
Growing up in the 70’s and being a car-crazed kid I often wondered where the Centurion model actually fell in the Buick line. A fancy LeSabre? Or maybe a special base model like the Cadillac Calais? The Centurion crest led me to believe it was the better model, but I never knew until all these years later that it was a big-engined, beefier suspensioned version of the LeSabre. Too bad it didn’t sell that well. Great concept, maybe not enough panache. And this reminds me somewhat of the A-body Century of the 80’s. The Century ‘T’ type transformed that car into a very different beast, with the 3.8 V-6 SFI engine, the upgraded suspension, blacked out trim and aluminum wheels on wide Eagle GT tires. I loved my ’87 ‘T’ Century – I think dealers were simply afraid of ordering such performance oriented models as they sold the wire wheeled, luxurious Limited and Custom versions all day long. In fact, when my neighbor special ordered this particular car (that I ended up buying from him 7 years later) the dealer asked him several times why he wanted the sportier model, and if he was definitely sure he wanted it before he signed on the dotted line. The dealer so much as said “Once we get it in, you own it” – which I can see would scare the prospective buyer out of their wits! My neighbor told them he didn’t want a floaty, bad handling GM car and liked the styling and size of the Century. Honestly I can say that car rode great and handled great too!
I think dealers are afraid of risk. They have a certain amount of space on their lots and they might as well fill those spaces with cars that they can move easily. Why get stuck with a model that nobody wants or wants to spend the extra dough on?
Good question about where the Centurion was positioned within the full-size Buicks. Essentially, it was a LeSabre hardtop with a firmer suspension and 455 engine standard. Which begs the question, along with the 455, was the firmer suspension an option on the LeSabre?
That’s really the only way the Centurion makes any sense, if it was the only way to get that specific suspension. Otherwise, what’s the point? Kind of the same as the Electra 225. It was pretty much just a LeSabre with all the luxury stuff already included.
But I guess that’s just marketing. A LeSabre with a lot of luxury or sporty options is just that. It’s a lot easier to impress with those Centurion or Electra emblems.
I found one on Craigslist. Sadly, someone donked it. Is that crap reversible?
https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/cto/6057481013.html
Kind of surprised that it took 10.3 seconds to get from 0 to 60mph considering the slightly less powerful 1972 Buick Centurion got to 0-60mph in the mid 9’s according to Bud Lindermann’s “Motor Trend” video.
Withing the typical and expected range of outcomes. Many variables can make that much difference or more.
I alo recall Bud’s test car having the optional 3.42 gears.
The biggest variable in that case being Craigs list itself! Makes my skin crawl.
On Craigslist, having to get out and push = ‘runs well’!
Somehow, the objective info on this one really kills my desire to love it. First, the thing is said to weigh 4680 pounds, even though it lacked the relatively solid build of the 1965-70 GM B-C cars. Then, the quoted (gross) power to weight ratio is 14.86 pounds per horsepower… a 20% discount (252 hp) gets us 18.6 pounds per horsepower. I guess the leaking, skipping transmission must have hurt the testing, because the acceleration and power-to-weight are off at the estimated net horsepower, seems like it should be more like 9ish to 60. (Or, gross hp is more inflated here…)
I consider myself a GM fan, in general, but this is just a pig, an attractively drawn car that only looks good by comparison to other cars of a bad time. It can get through a corner without scraping the body or separating tire from rim…a relief, no doubt. As the history indicates, GM would’ve downsized from this design even without an oil crisis.
And its 2017 as-tested price? $40,167. I’m guessing these helped sell European cars larger than VWs, Centuries, Cutlasses, Darts, and…nearly anything else.
Rich, I seem to recall that the new-for-1985 FWD Cadillac DeVille was the only car in recent memory to actually peel a tire off the rim, although I could very well be mistaken about that.
David, I remember reading that road test in Car and Driver. I don’t think I heard of that happening to any other car, but obviously, the incident stuck in my mind.
The 1971-72 (didn’t care for the 1973’s) full sized Buick’s are among my favorite full sized GM cars built in the early 1970’s.
My father Purchased new, a 1972 Buick Centurion 2dr hardtop, in Ice Blue with a darker blue interior and vinyl top. Fairly well optioned. Dad liked this car His first Buick since the 1940 he had as a kid. He drove Bonnevilles exclusively from 1959 up to this point, trading in his 1968 Bonneville brougham for it. I drove this beast on occasion. It handled well enough for it’s size. But it was not exactly the same as my Little Audi Fox, which I owned during the time dad drove the Centurion. Would not mind finding one in good nick, today. Dad kept the beast until 77, when he traded it for the downsized Buick LeSabre Sport coupe in copper. Another interesting car. Dad had moved up to Buick . but he still liked the performance image of Pontiac (or what used to be Pontiac)
A fascinating article, and one I had never seen — despite having regularly driven a 1971 Centurion since December, 1970. My father bought this one new, and it’s still in my garage today. It’s been a remarkably trouble-free cruiser for the long-haul, and, despite its 160,000+ miles, it remains a pleasure to drive.
Beautiful car, and so cool that it has been in your family since new! I also love the Buick Road Wheels–they are perfect for the Centurion!
Thank you, GN!
Wow that is such a beautiful car! How is it optioned?
Having 3 or more separate names for trims was on the way out in the 70’s. So, LeSabre and Electra sufficed after ’74.
Upper class Buick buyers want all out for Electras, and middle class went to 350 powered LeSabres, or smaller.
Having owned a B body Buick of that vintage, I find the statement “complete absence of body roll” hard to believe, firm suspension or not!
View it through the lens of somebody from that time period. To them, the body roll had been reduced drastically compared to other vehicles they had driven up to that point – the early seventies.
Crazy that gas is actually cheaper right now, or least exactly the same, than it was before the first fuel crisis. (It’s been around $2.00-$2.25 for a while now in Michigan). What’s really odd is that people seemed so much more willing to drive 10MPG (or worse) barges than they are today. Even the midsize cars got like 15 back then and people bought those in the same quantities, if not higher quantities when you add in full-size sales, than people buy Focuses, CR-Vs, and Camrys today. Which all get 20-30 MPG or even more.
Sometimes I wax about how things were “so much cheaper then” and how it would have been fun to live through the 60s and 70s, but it sounds like the good ole days were not so great after all. At least in terms of cars (it does seem much brighter in the past when taking into account the economic opportunities and overall cost of living, but that’s another story)
Actually, maybe that’s why people were okay with horrendous fuel economy then. Higher adjusted incomes for the average joe could justify 10 MPG on the commute to work, especially when making the “sacrifice” to a cheap thrifty car like an air-cooled Beetle (which STILL only got, what, 18 to 20?) back then was a MUCH bigger step down than a modern 30MPG base model compact, which are essentially luxury cars even compared to the nicer end of ’70s iron.
Progress my friend… A VW Bug would do 30 mpg tops ,a Mini and Fiat 500 40-50mpg. Carbs are like running taps compared to the pee pet like modern EFI !.
Anyone else notice that “…the instrument panel is especially designed for easy service.” If that was only the case these days!
Learned to drive on my family’s ’71 LeSabre (and ’69 AMC Javelin!). For it’s time and size, the Buick was a pretty good car. Workmanship was iffy on most all American makes in ’71. GM started that production year with an awful strike. But mechanically our Buick was really flawless, and it stayed in the family for 12-13 years!
I never understood the change from Wildcat to Centurion, though, and obviously the buying public didn’t go for it.
Kind of confusing, when they already had a Century in their lineup.
>>“When obscure cars are reviewed, Road Test Magazine will review them.” <<
Same w/ COTY prize. I remember not renewing when they gave it to the rather unfortunate-looking AMC Matador.
Anyone else recall a series of “teaser” newspaper classified ads leading up to the Centurions introduction?
If I’m not mistaken, it seems like the first of the ads didn’t even indicate that “The new Centurion” was going to be a car.
I think the optional heavy duty suspension package was the reason for the exceptional handling. Note that this package was available on the rest of the full size line.
Ahh the Centurion What a great name for a beautiful car. As stylish as the 4 door hardtop was, the show stopper was the 2 door coupe as it featured a closed in rear window with a slightly formal roof design, This gave the Centurion 2 door coupe a totally different look than the LeSabre 2 door coupe. I don’t believe the 2 door was offered without a vinyl roof.
I believe Oldsmobile also featured a version of their Delta 88 2 door coupe with this slightly formal roof. I will have to check the brochure on oldcarbrochures.com.
The centurion was an intermediate in weight and size between the sky and the 225. If the sky was too small ( if u had a family) and u wanted a more nimble car. This was the car for u. I have one and yeah, the 455, turbo 400 had no power. No potential either for improvement. Wink wink. Small engine bay and space in front in case u wwanted to add anything right? Lol. The interior space is so bad and the trunk isn’t like the Electra. Waaaaaah. I’m crying ! Ugly body lines too. As far as gas mileage there are things to do to incr it trendously so u will be in new buick lucerne company. Those that know buy cars from those that don’t for cheap and have the ride of a lifetime. It’s a terrible, horrible worthless car. Believe me. I can help you get rid of yours very quickly.