Centurion VS. Monterey - Motor Trend March 1971

[Smartin]

I ran across an interesting item on ebay a couple weeks ago and bought it on the spot. It is an article from Motor Trend Magazine comparing the Mercury Monterey to the Buick Centurion in 1971. Cool reading!! Enjoy..

http://www.buickpartsdirectory.com/centurion/centurion_mag.htm

EDIT: I goofed on the links on the page...they're fixed now.

[Centurion]

Adam, I still have my original issue from my high school days when the article was published. Of course, I don't think you were even born yet!!

This is the only Centurion road test I ever ran across. I always thought that the author arrived at a surprising conclusion. The Centurion performed better in virtually all objective measures, but he liked the Monterey better.

Interestingly, shortly after my family bought a new '71 Centurion, the next door neighbors purchased a new '71 Mercury Marquis and another nearby neighbor (parents of a high school friend) purchased a new '71 Olds 98 coupe. I enjoyed comparing the three cars, and even found myself in a few traffic light drag races, pitting the new Centurion against my high school friend's new Olds 98. I must say, however, that the Centurion was certainly the sharpest, sportiest looking model of the three. And I'm quite certain that my Centurion is the only car of that trio that survives today.

[Guest Shaffer]

Interesting indeed. Thanks for that link. I too thought the conclusion was interesting. At first- I wondered why they compared the mid-line 4dr Buick, to the entry level 2-door Mercury (Monterey was the base model), but after further reading, I read where they had to take what they could get. To "fairly" compare- they should have used the Marquis 4dr hardop, which was the mid-line model, or a LeSabre 2dr. Top of the line Mercury was the Marquis Brougham- (which unlike the Electra which had a longer wheelbase than the LeSabre/Centurion) rode the same wheelbase if I am not mistaken, as the Monterey.

As time passed, they would have also learned that the Buick would have typically had a more reliable electrical system than the Mercury. During my childhood years- my parents owned several 60 and 70s Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Chrysler Corporation cars and I have as well. I have discovered that typically, the General Motors cars have a much better electrical system. We had several 70s Lincolns, that had numerous electrical problems- especially with power windows, as did my grandpas 65 Lincoln. Also too- my uncles old 65' Cadillac Sedan DeVille had every power feature in perfect order- while its competetor (my grandpas 65 Lincoln) had electrical problems galore- especially with the windows.

In comparison, ALL of my 70s GM cars- (72 Electra, 71 Toronado, 72 Sedan DeVille, 71 Caprice) had excellent electrical systems, as does my 69 Caprice. I do have to say that the Ford Motor Company cars of the 70s had better door hinges/latches. Doors seem to close tighter and with more of a "clunk" than the GM cars- especially the 2-door models.

It was interesting that the Mercury only had power disc brakes as an option, because that was even a standard feature on ALL 1971 full-size Chevrolets- even the "plain-Jane" base Biscayne. In my opinion, the Monterey's true competetor was the base Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Pontiac Catalina/Catalina Brougham/Bonneville, (at least the Monterey) rather than Buick. I am really just being too much of a critic here- they were both "full size" 1971 cars and it was actually a good comparison, but not really for the feature part of the test. Still very interesting reading, because I find the old road test very interesting. I have one comparing a 1971 Chrysler Newport (or New Yorker) to a 1971 Pontiac Grand Ville. I am still wauting for it. I got it on E-Bay. I would like to see one comparing the early 70s Caprice, Grand Ville, Ninety-Eight, Electra 225, and Sedan DeVille.

Somewhere I have a 1972 General Motors pricing/comparision guide. It lists most all options and prices for ALL 1972 GM cars. It is very interesting. I would like to someday figure out how to post it here on a site to share with everyone.

Centurion: your comparing the "new" 71' cars is something I would have have enjoyed doing. As you can probably tell, I am still intrigued by the way the cars are optioned and comparing them.

[Centurion]

Shaffer, there was also a Motor Trend comparison test later in 1971 that compared the Electra 225, Oldsmobile 98, and Mercury Marquis. As I recall, no clear victor was declared in that test.

Since you also like the '69's, you might enjoy the MT comparison test of the Pontiac Bonneville, Olds Delta 88, Buick Wildcat, and Chrysler Newport Custom. The Wildcat was clearly the favored vehicle within that group. MT particularly liked the Wildcat's performance and massive finned aluminum brakes.

[vkohanski]

There was an individual road test of the 1971 Centurion. There's a copy included in the Buick Muscle Portfolio 1963-1973. It's quite favorable for the Centurion as an "overall" performance vehicle. They gave it great marks for handling. I can't seem to get the files of the pages small enough to post here... Send me an e-mail address if you would like to see it.

[NTX5467]

If you really want to see some good comparison tests, seek out some of the CAR LIFE magazines of the later 1960s. Most of the tests they did were multi-car affairs with a pretty even mix of Ford, GM, and Chrysler products. A generally good mix of the various GM cars too. The vehicles they had were usually much more evenly matched than what Motor Trend did back then. CAR LIFE also did some good single car tests too.

One thing I really liked about the way CAR LIFE did things was that everything was done as scientifically as possible, complete with extensive "spec sheets" on each vehicle. MUCH more extensive than Motor Trend ever had too! Their testing was not so much about generating numbers in acceleration, stopping, or handling, they also had lots of action shots of the cars doing those various things. Many underhood pictures too.

For example, instead of just using a skid pad for their handling evaluations, they found some real world curves and such to run each of the cars through at a specified speed, for example, and then taking pictures of the cars as they went through the turn and at what speed. HIGHLY revealing! In a "powercar" test (full size cars with musclecar-sized engines), it was amazing that the Michelins on the '69 LTD 429 were staying on their rims in that corner (due to the understeer in the Ford chassis combined with sidewall deflection) whereas the Dodge Monaco 440 (with belted tires) drove through with less lean and with no drama. Most of the full size GM cars had rear sway bars at that time and they did well too.

Other than all of the engineering data and photography, they were extremely even handed in their evaluations. If something was not up to snuff, they mentioned "why" that car was "weak" in that particular area. NO JDPower stuff there! Unfortunately, by 1972, the Petersen Publishing Company (i.e., Motor Trend) had bought them up and that brand of testing seemed to vanish.

Motor Trend did some multi-car comparison tests, but it seemed that most of them of that era were not comparing apples with apples in many cases. If it was a musclecar test, it seemed they all had 3.91 or so gears in them. What CAR LIFE got was much more like what you'd find on the dealership lots (i.e., "real world" vehicles).

CAR LIFE was also the leader in doing very well presented technical articles on the many advances in automotive technology and equipment in the later 1960s. Tires and chassis interactions, fuel economy, emissions, and engine performance were just some of the subjects they covered, while not glorifying (Whoops! make that "showcasing") their advertisers in the progress (as some did and still seem to do).

Each corporation's vehicles had their own unique sounds they made back then, especially with door latches and such. Not to mention starters and transmissions. That was part of what made those cars so neat, especially now that much of that has been engineered out of them.

Ford started on a quality assembly orientation in the middle 1960s that resulted in their generally better panel fits, "dead on" tape stripes, smoother acrylic enamel paint, and such, plus quietness and greater road noise isolation than what GM or Chrysler had. The Fords did ride smooth and generally as "Quiet as a Rolls Royce", but they had much more understeer in the chassis than any other brand of car. Steering was "isolated" too. But that was "luxury" at that time.

Chrysler and GM had wiring systems that were pretty much "on the same page" with respect to how they were laid out. Ford did things a little differently. Whereas GM had a firewall bulkhead connector with about 20 single wires coming through it, Ford used one that had fewer wires. After the particular wires came through the bulkhead, they then spread and branched out into the many different circuits (including inline fuses and circuit breakers!) behind the instrument panel. I know all of this from an experience in helping a guy in the college dorm I was in fix his 1969 Mercury Marquis after his girl friend missed a low water crossing down on Padre Island (submerging the front section of the car in the Gulf of Mexico).

I took him down to the Lincoln-Mercury dealership in Lubbock to get the things he needed to replace. He asked about a wiring diagram and the service manager brought out a book, a normal-sized service manual for just the wiring, and then proceeded to spread it out from fender to fender on a Lincoln's core support (that just happened to be handy). Unlike what I'd seen of GM and Chrysler wiring diagrams at that time, Ford built theirs in foldout fashion and "actual size scale".

Ford was also much more dependent on manifold vacuum to run various things too. Chrysler and GM used a mix of cables, levers, and such whereas it seemed that Fords had much more rubber vacuum lines behind the instrument panel--not to mention under the hood on the later emissions controlled vehicles. I wondered if the desire to be so dependent on rubber for those things might have gone back to the early days of the Ford Motor Company when they owned their own rubber plantation?

All of the cars of the "mid-century" era and later had their own unique characters and identities, even though they were competing for the same customers. That, plus the great diversity of optional equipment and trim levels and such were some of the things that made the American Cars and Trucks of that era so neat and interesting. "Those Were The Days"! Now, we're lucky if we have more than two different interior colors to choose from!

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

[Centurion]

Victor, I would certainly enjoy seeing that Centurion road test. If you're willing to e-mail it, here's my address: brianl@americanconstco.com

NTX, I remember purchasing several issues of "Car Life" beginning when I was seven years old. I, too, miss that publication.

[Guest Shaffer]

Victor- I would also like to see that road test:

ashaffer1@chartertn.net

Thanks!!

[Guest Shaffer]

Centurion- that sounds very interesting and one I would like to eventually get to view. I would also like to see the one with the 69s.

I finally received my 71 Pontiac / Chrysler road MT road test today. It was actually a 71' Chrysler 300 2dr hardtop they was comparing to a 71' Pontiac Grand Ville 4dr hardtop. Pontiac was clearly the winner in about all tests. The only two things they liked about the Chrysler better than the Pontiac was that the 300 had firmer suspension and better handling, but the ride was not as smooth. The Chrysler also had what they called "loop" bumpers, which they say protected the "ends" of the car better in minor parking lot accidents. The Pontiac had a better ride, better braking, smoother running engine, nicer interior, better designed instrument panel/guages, etc. Also too, despite being heavier, the Pontiac was the faster car.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shaffer, there was also a Motor Trend comparison test later in 1971 that compared the Electra 225, Oldsmobile 98, and Mercury Marquis. As I recall, no clear victor was declared in that test.

Since you also like the '69's, you might enjoy the MT comparison test of the Pontiac Bonneville, Olds Delta 88, Buick Wildcat, and Chrysler Newport Custom. The Wildcat was clearly the favored vehicle within that group. MT particularly liked the Wildcat's performance and massive finned aluminum brakes. </div></div>

[Guest Shaffer]

NTX- those Car Life magazines sound interesting. I will check those out.

I know what you mean about the "Ford quality" beginning in the mid 60s. I think it was more focused on the exterior than it was on the interior. I think it really seemed to have taken place in the late 60s especially. We had some early 70s Lincolns and a few Fords and I remember the doors always closing tighter than it would on the GM or Chrysler cars. The panels fit more evenly as well. Chrysler seemed to be worse than GM. Chrysler doors closed with a harsh "clang". My uncle has a 1972 Ford Thunderbird and that cars exterior panels fit perfectly and even though it is a 2-door, the doors close tightly, with a solid "thunk". Chryslers interior quality also seems to be below GM and Ford in my opinion.

One interesting thing I remember on our 1972 and 1976 Lincoln Continental was the high interior (instrument panel anyway) quality. The entire dash panel was tightly assembled and was 100% padded from the top of the dash all the way down to the bottom. What I do find interesting is that the same year Ford (full-size) from 1971-1972 used a hard plastic dash top on the driver side- which was unusual for a early 70s car, but switched back to 100% padded dash top for 1973.

I remember comparing my old 72' Cadillac to a 72' Imperial and the Cadillac was far superior in quality.

In reply to the electrical systems, I do not really know why Chrysler systems were worse, but I think they were. Out of ALL of the Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth cars we or someone in my family have owned- we had electrical problems- even more than the GM/Ford cars. I had a 73' Plymouth Valiant- electrical problems! No dash lights worked, nor guages, but all fuses were good. Same problem eventually cropped up on a 77' Plymouth Volare' we had. My grandparents had a 89 Chrysler- electrical nightmare and almost caught fire due to a short. They got wise and went back to Buick! My uncle had a 70' Dodge truck and every wire under the hood of that truck was charred, but the truck still run. Seems to be a common problem on ALL Chryslers- even today. Actually, a new recall for the 2001-2002 Chrysler-Dodge vans is that the radio can short circuit and cause a fire. I know that some Fords and even GM can have electrical problems too, but Chrysler seems to be in the lead. You mentioned that Chrysler and GM had the same basic setup- but do you know of anything Chrysler may have done differently than GM to make them so much worse?

[NTX5467]

With respect to Chrysler electrical systems, I have not figured out why it seems that others have problems in that area and we never did with the Chrysler products we've owned and known about, at least to the magnitude that is alluded to.

Seems that every '72-'90something pre-Ram Dodge pickup that friends have bought or traded for have something rigged in the wiring for some reason. Horn buttons are somewhat common it seems, but the fix to do it right took less effort and time to do that they spent doing the rigging. Whether it was due to some auto supply or dealership parts person saying "We can't get that any more" (when they could get the part, or it took a larger part than the customer desired to purchase) is open for debate, or if it was more due to the various demographics of the owners at that time of the trucks' lifespan.

On our '72 Newport, the dash lights had a ground strap that was anchored with a Phillips head screw that held the trim panel on. When the screw got loose, the "flood light" lighting went out. A simple tightening took care of it.

On my '70 Monaco Brougham, the horn did not work when I bought it (in '75). I was advised of that by the dealer, but we thought he didn't know it had a Rim Blow wheel on it. Turned out the rim blow would "auto contact" whenever the interior temp got over about 80 degrees. I later found a cooked horn relay too, plus that other brands with rim blow wheels had worse "failure" issues. Not to mention that when the horn blew for extended periods of time, the spring that held the contact in the turn signal switch would weaken and cause an open in the circuit there.

The instrument panel bulb sockets on that car had a strange issue with the ears fracturing and the particular lights not working. Same sockets that GM used, but they seemed to break until I got most of them changed out.

On my '67 Newport, it stopped running one night. After geting it back to the house, I found some wiring issues in the main lead wire to the ignition switch under the instrument panel. Seems the former owner had stripped some insulation from that wire to attach another wire for something, then took the "something" off and put some of the famous chewing gum paper around it or something of that nature. A new section of wire properly connected fixed that. Then a flaky bulkhead connector terminal in the same circuit showed up later.

When I got my '68 LeSabre, the horn didn't work so I got a new turn signal switch for it. Once I found out which switch it needed, it was no problem to change it out. BUT putting the horn button back onto the steering wheel and getting it to work was a "trick". Finally got it back together and it worked.

The late '60s full size Ford padded dashes looked neat, until they cracked out in the speaker "hole" section. They were quite thick, as it turned out when they broke open. Similar for the Pontiac Fiero padded dash panels.

Later model GM and Ford vehicles have had their share of electrical issues too. There's a couple of reasonably current bulletins out for GM vehicles regarding "thermal events". Not to mention the "thick film" engine control modules that Ford has had trouble with. Nor the Magnavox ignition modules that were on many Buick 3.8L V-6s in the later '80s or the MAF failure issues on the similar vehicles.

Usually, many of these issues are not quite as common as many would want you to believe, but most every brand of vehicle has some issues from time to time--including Mercedes Benz. Getting a used car sometimes provides some interesting "adventures" in electrical repairs! Sometimes due to prior-owner "modifications" or sometimes just normal deterioration of the components. Definite learning experiences, which can generate some good "war stories".

And then some vehicles in certain people's hands just seem to have problems when someone else could have the same vehicle with no problems whatsoever. I've seen some of that over the years. One model year has no problems but the one just in front or just behind it has lots of trouble. Lots of variables!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest Shaffer]

Sounds like you have also had a few Chrysler electrical problems. Like you said- all cars have their problems, but it seems like the 60s and even thru the 90s "Mopars" have had more than average electrical glitches. I have even saw 60s-70s Plymouths/Dodges on E-Bay, with the following statements: "guages do not work", or "dash lights do not work". Not always, but I do see it more than I do on Ford/GM.

[NTX5467]

From what I've seen, electrical problems can be caused by many situations--including "user problems" or "expert techs" that had little knowledge of how to chase things down, or the inclination to learn how. As the Allpar.com FAQs so vividly point out, Chrysler products (and other makes of vehicle too) are not all the same to the "generic" extent that many people suspect them to be. That's why it's important to find somebody to work on the vehicles, of whatever marque or manufacturer, that KNOWs about them AND has experience with certain repairs and operational idiosyncracies with them. As many of us in the hobby have found out, WE have learned by doing these things ourselves, yet knowing when to let others do the ones that we might not have expertise in doing ourselves. In some cases, our knowledge has come from fixing things that other "experts" might have messed up instead of fixing them correctly (to last).

When I was frequenting the Usenet newsgroups on Chrysler and GM products, there were many Chrysler Certified Techs in the Chrysler forum that pretty much told some people how they only needed an exhaust seal or motor mount instead of that new transaxle. Or that a transaxle computer reprogram (Chrysler's computerization is much more complicated than GM or Ford vehicles, which can be added problems for the "uninitated") or sensor replacement on said transaxle would have most probably fixed the problem instead of a reman transaxle. By observation, it's much more critical to find a tech or repair facility that is fully versed in Chrysler issues than it might be for the more common Ford or GM vehicle.

The worst thing that happened electrically to our '66 Chrysler was when I got the alternator rebuilt and then it stopped charging. The dealer checked it out and found a bulkhead terminal that had a problem. An easy fix and one that stayed fixed. The issues with the Rim Blow steering wheel were related more to that particular "upscale" option than anything else. Possibly a reason why that option had a short life as an option?

A friend of mine bought a late model Chevy pickup from an insurance company as a "total". The prior owner got it hot (in mud) and melted the wiring harness for the "rigged" trailer wiring harness, which took out the neutral safety switch as it "cooked". Also melted the shift cable for the transmission. The local Chevy dealer estimated the repairs at over $5000.00 so the insurance company totalled it out. Shift lever would not move = dead transmission. He bought it "sight unseen" and came out really lucky as it only took about $200.00 to fix it, plus the wrecker bill and money to get all of the mud off of it. So, when you see those "gauges don't work" or similar things in those eBay ads, it might be more indicative of the expertise of the owner is getting things fixed (whether from normal deterioration, flaky design, OR just an inoperative voltage limiter for the gauge circuit, which Chryslers usually had and GMs didn't). Might also be a signal of outside influences that caused the gauges not to work too! Lots of different reasons that should not always result in blanket condemnation of any vehicle per se. The funny part, to me, is that all of those things for the Chrysler musclecars (just as for similar GM and Ford vehicles, typically) are available in the restoration industry from established sources. Maybe the owners didn't know that? Their loss is your gain?

To me, the "flakiest" wiring setup was on the Fords of the late '60s where you could, with the ignition turned "Off", put certain switches in the "On" position in a particular sequence, then step on the brake (to turn on the brake lights) and it would cause enough voltage backfeed to let the radio work. Absolutely made "no sense" to me, but I knew people that had done it and demonstrated how to do it.

As I said earlier, many vehicles have their own somewhat common reliability or durability issues. I saw owners of the GM 6.2L and 6.5L diesels cuss them up and down for various things, plus say they were going to buy a Ford next time. Then, when I finally got around somebody that owned the Ford/IH diesels, they had the same issues with them that the GM owners did--almost to a "T". Just depends on whom you might be hanging around when the "dialogue" about how bad a particular vehicle might be. Many times, that "green grass" on the other side of the fence might be a mirage or similar for what looks like dead grass.

Back in the '77 time frame, I knew a guy that bought a new Chevy Monza Mirage. After a while, he grew tired of the small motor and tried to get the warranty people to buy him a new engine, but a CA spec 350 to put in its place. The Turbo 200 trans acted "funny", but no problems were found. The tape stripes/decals had problems too. He tried to "kill" it one day, in something of a "grand plan" to get it like he wanted it to be. He put it in low gear and headed around the regional metro loop--in low gear and high rpm. About 30 minutes later, it was clattering and wheezing and he got to the shoulder before it stopped from the heat. He thought he'd finally accomplished what he was hoping for--a trashed engine and a cooked transmission. He called his wife to come get him and she did.

They left the Monza on the side of the road until the next day. It was still there as nobody would steal it, apparently, or strip it for parts. He got into it, turned the key, and it started right up. No noise, no problem. The transmission worked too. They kept it for a while longer and made more payments on it before trading it for something they were better attuned to.

Everybody has some preset tolerance level in dealing with car issues. Some people reach their levels sooner than others. When that happens, it's "get rid of it" without regard to recouping the investment. That's when some bargains can be had!

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[vkohanski]

Never drove a Monterey. Galaxie once, but not a Monterey. However, I do have to say that I thoroughly like the way the Centurion drives and handles... and it corners exceptionally well for a 2 1/2 ton vehicle. As with all vehicles from that time period, you had to know what to expect when pushing the handling... like when the rear end would start to let go... or when over/understeer would set in. If you don't know those things through experience, those older cars can get away from you. Years ago I had a '76 Grand Prix SJ... sweet machine and loved to push it... I knew exactly how to let the rear end loose in cornering and work the hard acceleration coming out with the positrac rear. The Centurion is also extremely comfortable and just an overall pleasure to drive. I have to say that visibility with the top up is awful, but that's more a convertible issue than that car. But the top should rarely be up, anyway. Other thing is the rearview mirror - bad blind spot. Then again... who cares what's behind... Ought to just take it off.v

[vkohanski]

Brian and Shaffer, sent you guys the article. I lowered the resolution to minimize file size. If you need it in higher resolution, just let me know and I'll send the bigger files.

[Centurion]

Victor, I received the article, and was able to read it with no problems. This was an excellent article, and I appreciate that you've passed it along. The article is called an "RT/Test Report". Was there a publication called "Road Test" magazine? I doubt whether this would be "Road and Track".

I suspect that the car used for this test was the same one used in the "Motor Trend" article.

I'm going to quote a few excerpts from the article here, because I think they're excellent and closely match some of my observations about Centurions over the years.

The first relates to the car's clean styling:

"Visually, the Centurion stands as a handsomely and simply-styled automobile. We congratulate the Buick styling studio for having allowed the basic lines and form of the Centurion to define its personality while refraining from the temptation to tack on a bunch of non-contributory chrome ornamentation."

This is an excellent point, and it's one reason I much prefer the full size Buicks of 1971 and 1972 over the facelifted models that followed. I have often said that some of the beauty and integrity of the original design was frittered away as we saw the addition of 5-mph bumpers, stand-up hood ornaments, opera windows, and all the rest of the typical '70's styling fripperies.

Here's another quote:

"On the road, the Centurion delivers a high level of total performance. By total performance we mean that combination of acceleration, top speed, stopping, cornering, ride and comfort which establish a car's operational personality. Among these, handling in general and cornering in particular are the Centurion's strongest performance suits."

Later in the article, the Centurion is called "the best handling of any full-sized car we have tested."

Yes, when I take the wheel of the Centurion again after all these years, I still marvel at the wonderful ride and handling. My car was factory-equipped with the "firm ride and handling package" and the optional, oversize tires (which were quickly replaced by new Michelins back in '71). From day one, I recognized that the handling marked a substantial improvement compared to the '65 Wildcat that the Centurion replaced.

[72Buickguy]

The Consumer Reports magazines of the day gave top reliablility scores to Buicks and Oldsmobiles. I had a beautiful 65 Chrysler New Yorker that was fully loaded, all the options including power vents, dual power seats and power antenna. I replaced every electric motor in that car, it was not reliable electrically at all. When the seat frame broke one day, I decided I had enough. That's one thing I never had to replace before.

[Guest Shaffer]

Thanks Victor. I received the article as well, with no problems. Very interesting reading. Especially the part about the transmission leak the car developed. Strange- they did not mention what it was, or what caused it. Still, this car received high ratings. I think the "ride" rating would have been higher if the car had of lacked the "firm suspension" package, but then the handling would have went down. Thanks again.

[Smartin]

Victor, could you send me a copy of that artice?

adamm@buickpartsdirectory.com

Thannnnnnnnks

[Guest Shaffer]

I am going to try to post that article that I have soon.....