We had a 'new 73 Century 4 door with 350 2V. Smooth, quiet, plenty of power and handled surprisingly well for a family car. Had excellent steering and brakes. The turbo-hydramatic was so smooth, I could barely feel the shifts from first to second and second to third in normal driving. Very solid car. Thanks for the memories!
Well, a matter of context! It took many more years, and style changes, for American cars to exhibit better handling. The point of this video, was to show that at least the handling of this then "medium-sized" car was predictable, and controllable--unless the driver was an idiot! I thought it was odd, that the 0-60 time was not featured here...that is likely, because the earlier versions of this car were even more powerful, and faster!...a 1970 Buick Stage I made 0-60 in slightly less than 6 seconds--among the quickest "muscle cars" of that era...all of that began to change, by the early 1970s...the infamous "malaise era" had begun.
I am now 77yo....over the last 50 years, I have owned two Buicks--a 1968 Skylark, with the more common 350V8, and then a 1972 Electra, with that famous 455V8...Both cars were bought used, with around 70,000 miles...both cars lasted, without any major repairs, for 180,000 miles. My father, back in 1967, bought his first new car--a Buick wildcat, with the 430V8...He adored that car, and put over 300,000 miles on it, before a drunk hit it while failing to make a turn. The point I want to make, is that Buick, IMO, was the best of the GM line-up of cars, back when bigger, cruiser-type vehicles were appreciated by the American public. Buick's slogan was "When better cars are built, Buick will build them!" My experience proved their slogan to be correct. Back in the late 50s, and on through the early 1970s, American cars in general were regarded as being the best vehicles in the world, for the money.
I'm guessing you never drove a 70s car. GMs were good in these intermediate to full size platforms. Fords wallowed so badly you would need kevlar kneepads if it wasn't for the doors.
"For some time Buick brakes have been among the best in the industry". Well sure, they're the same brakes used by every division of GM along with certain Checker and Jeep vehicles.
Not true. In the 1970’s there wasn’t nearly as much parts sharing between divisions. And Buick division brakes were recognized as the best of any GM brand. The 455 Buick big block was also seen as the best of the big blocks of that era.
@@kcindc5539 If you look up the part numbers for the brake pads, calipers, and rotors, you'll find that the same part was used throughout GM, along with certain Jeep and Checker applications. The Buick 455 was indeed awesome, almost as good as Oldsmobile's.
@@kcindc5539 You sir, are absolutely correct!..That engine was coveted by drag racers, in the 1970s and 80s...it was highly adaptable to being seriously juiced up, and rarely broke! Back then, GM divisions built their own engines...for whatever reason, Buick V8s were considered the best...I have mentioned that my dad's 67 Wildcat, with the 430V8, lasted over 300,000 miles, and never needed even a valve job!...He did have to replace the U-joints twice, but that seems reasonable. After all these years, the consensus is that Buick was indeed the highest quality ride of that era.
@@curbozerboomer1773 those engines were legendary. Back in the 70’s every time my Mom would get gas for her 1966 LeSabre at Rick Steele’s Gulf station in Newtown, PA he’d say “Gerry, make sure you sell me that car when you’re done with it. I want that motor!”. We sold it to him after Mom died in December 1976.
They were built on the sane platform; GM A-Body. Olds Cutlass, Chevy Malibu, Pontiac Grand Prix, all were on the same platform. They called it the Colonnade because of because of all the roof pillars.
the 73 Regal, Grand Sport , Century were really nice handling cars. Both of mine were super performance suspensions and built 350-4. Wish I had my 73 Regal back again. Midnight Blue with blue top. All my years I've only seen two like mine. We really built up The 73 GS. When Better automobiles are built, BUICK will build them 😉
Yes!...Buick was slightly late to the Muscle Car party, but when they decided to jump in...they did a great job!...The Stage One was among the very quickest of all the more famous brands back around 1970...5.7 seconds 0-60 was blisteringly fast back then!
Yep lol. In the mid 70's they said that's it! lets put heavy battering rams on the Gremlins to the larger than life Bonnevilles. Clear a path that'll show em' ( :
Not bad performance for a Buick...in 1973! That was 270 net hp which would have been the equivalent of over 325 gross hp. Even the '74 model was only down 15 hp and that was probably thanks to catalytic converters.
Before it was called the “Rockford”, the reverse spin out was known as the Joey Chipwood….back when people could drive and the cars were comfortable… now it’s all a joke
Most of the GM mid-size muscle cars of the 60s came with a 3.91 open diff. I never understood it then, and even this neutered smog-era '73 needed posi badly. I wonder how much better the acceleration times would have been?
@@paulplack490 The tires of the era were crap too. The acceleration times sound like jokes today, but just moden tires might shave a half to one sec off those quarter miles.
Yup...smog controls!...that same engine, in the later 1960s, had 375hp...plus, vehicles were rated a different way in the 1970s...the hp was measured NOT at the engine, but back at the end of the drive line...and smog regulations clearly choked those engines, at least until Cat converters were used.
@@curbozerboomer1773 false about the HP being rear tire not engine. They were engine, but driving oil pump water pump alternator etc. and through the stock exhaust manifolds. The old gross figures didn't measure any of that. And it's BS that smog control and cats choked the engines. I've had a 400HP 5.0L and 490HP 4.3L with a LOT cleaner exhaust than this.
@@lqr824 The emissions controls of the 1970's took hundreds of HP out of cars and ruined them. The automakers overcame the performance deficits with technology. Imagine what the cars would have done today if they were unhindered by smog rules.
@@henrystowe6217 > Imagine what the cars would have done today if they were unhindered by smog rules. Probably pretty much the same. Outputting smog hardly makes a car go faster. It means you're not burning the fuel completely, and thus not extracting maximum power from it. It's absurd to fantasize about cars actually being faster with less complete burning. You know nothing about cars or engineering or technology and you shouldn't mention these topics again because people laugh at you louder and louder. You also know nothing of the health effects of pollution. Do you feed your kids lead paint chips? If not why not?
@lqr824 You dont know anything either. the more efficiently you burn fuel, oxides of nitrogen increase. The benefit of that was reduced CO and HC. Old emission control systems used EGR to and air pumps to lower combustion temperatures for NOX reduction. Lower combustion temps reduce engine efficiency. Because of todays emissions standards, we are faced with accepting lower power outputs. Catalytic converters and electronic fuel injection went a long way to reduce all exhaust emissions. But people who talk about the "health effects" of so called pollution really dont care about efficiency or anything else. They want to make driving so unpleasant to stop people from driving entirely. Thats the truth in the whole argument.
Dang...the Chevy 283 had more horsepower than this barge! Yeah, I understand the gross vs net horsepower thing, but I still remember these years when they defanged the muscle and family cars and how disappointing it was when you could no longer twist both tires with a big block. A real disgusting memory was from 1975 when a girlfriend's dad bought her a little Chevy Monza with a 350. Took it out all excited do a torture test. Went to do a power brake and it couldn't even turn one tire. Repulsive!
The 283 might have made more horse power, but the Buick was the king of low and midrange torque. You had to wind the 283 mouse motor to high rpm to get its hp. But the grunter Buick was making serious torque between around 1800 to 4400 rpm. (Up to and over 510 foot pounds worth.) And the Buick big block was pretty light for its size. But not featherweight 283 light weight. The magic number for hp vs torque is 5252 rpm, where the two ratings meet. Then hp produced rises above torque. Big block Buicks generally did not hag out at that level of RPM or higher. But many a mouse motor did.
No it didn’t. The top dog was the 283 hp 283, the first engine to achieve 1 hp/cubic inch. This was the GROSS rating, which would have been around 225 hp NET.
You say you "understand the gross vs net hp thing," but you clearly don't. Off the top of my head the most powerful 283 was 315 gross hp in the Vette. Even with all the restrictions this makes 270 net hp, which if you were to dyno them side by side is obviously more. And with still decent hp and gobs of torque, I'm sure this thing had zero problems lighting up the tires. These car are also a lot more than just their engines (which could be brought back to previous hp levels relatively easily). Styling (which is subjective) aside, they were better in EVERY other way than what came before them.
EPA didn't destroy everything. I've had 400HP 5.0L and 490HP 4.3L that are both EPA compliant, both naturally aspirated. GM corporate vision was simply crap in those years.
They were really pounding the crap out of this thing!
gotta love it!
"...since breathing clean air became popular." 🤣🤣🤣
Doing a "Rockford" before it became a "Rockford"!
We had a 'new 73 Century 4 door with 350 2V. Smooth, quiet, plenty of power and handled surprisingly well for a family car. Had excellent steering and brakes. The turbo-hydramatic was so smooth, I could barely feel the shifts from first to second and second to third in normal driving. Very solid car. Thanks for the memories!
"Body lean was very slight" 😂
Yea Right, what a Laugh!
A land barge. 455 ci with 190 hp.
that’s because it had Accu-Ride 😮
Well, a matter of context! It took many more years, and style changes, for American cars to exhibit better handling. The point of this video, was to show that at least the handling of this then "medium-sized" car was predictable, and controllable--unless the driver was an idiot! I thought it was odd, that the 0-60 time was not featured here...that is likely, because the earlier versions of this car were even more powerful, and faster!...a 1970 Buick Stage I made 0-60 in slightly less than 6 seconds--among the quickest "muscle cars" of that era...all of that began to change, by the early 1970s...the infamous "malaise era" had begun.
@@dewfall56 270 Horsepower, net.
That guy can wheel!
That’s Bud’s son doing the driving
@@kcindc5539 Wow how cool is that
@@waggitnshaggit6592 glad you think so too
Considering that car really does not want to be put through any of this. I think it is a handsome car though.
After the excitement of the 1960's, the 70's-80's were kind of a tough time to be an auto journalist.
I had a brown one. Wish I didn't sell it. It was fast and rode smooth.
Thats how I used to drive my 74 Monte Carlo.😅
Spin that wheel.
I am now 77yo....over the last 50 years, I have owned two Buicks--a 1968 Skylark, with the more common 350V8, and then a 1972 Electra, with that famous 455V8...Both cars were bought used, with around 70,000 miles...both cars lasted, without any major repairs, for 180,000 miles. My father, back in 1967, bought his first new car--a Buick wildcat, with the 430V8...He adored that car, and put over 300,000 miles on it, before a drunk hit it while failing to make a turn. The point I want to make, is that Buick, IMO, was the best of the GM line-up of cars, back when bigger, cruiser-type vehicles were appreciated by the American public. Buick's slogan was "When better cars are built, Buick will build them!" My experience proved their slogan to be correct. Back in the late 50s, and on through the early 1970s, American cars in general were regarded as being the best vehicles in the world, for the money.
It's like watching an oil tanker do a reverse spin 😅
RIP BUD
GONE TOO SOON
1983: CANCER 58
likely from car exhaust
Breathing clean air must have not been popular for him
Love my 1975 Buick century 350 2 barrel runs like my 454
"Other Centurys will not handle as well" - Ours was a 75 4dr sedan - it didn't. But it was pleasant enough car.
'Body lean was very slight' , he said without a hint of sarcasm as this boat looks like it's going to capsize.
I'm guessing you never drove a 70s car. GMs were good in these intermediate to full size platforms. Fords wallowed so badly you would need kevlar kneepads if it wasn't for the doors.
Love that car
"For some time Buick brakes have been among the best in the industry". Well sure, they're the same brakes used by every division of GM along with certain Checker and Jeep vehicles.
Not true. In the 1970’s there wasn’t nearly as much parts sharing between divisions. And Buick division brakes were recognized as the best of any GM brand. The 455 Buick big block was also seen as the best of the big blocks of that era.
@@kcindc5539 If you look up the part numbers for the brake pads, calipers, and rotors, you'll find that the same part was used throughout GM, along with certain Jeep and Checker applications. The Buick 455 was indeed awesome, almost as good as Oldsmobile's.
@@kcindc5539 You sir, are absolutely correct!..That engine was coveted by drag racers, in the 1970s and 80s...it was highly adaptable to being seriously juiced up, and rarely broke! Back then, GM divisions built their own engines...for whatever reason, Buick V8s were considered the best...I have mentioned that my dad's 67 Wildcat, with the 430V8, lasted over 300,000 miles, and never needed even a valve job!...He did have to replace the U-joints twice, but that seems reasonable. After all these years, the consensus is that Buick was indeed the highest quality ride of that era.
@@curbozerboomer1773 those engines were legendary. Back in the 70’s every time my Mom would get gas for her 1966 LeSabre at Rick Steele’s Gulf station in Newtown, PA he’d say “Gerry, make sure you sell me that car when you’re done with it. I want that motor!”. We sold it to him after Mom died in December 1976.
My ‘73 LeMans was very similar, roof line looks to be the same. That was a good car.
They were built on the sane platform; GM A-Body. Olds Cutlass, Chevy Malibu, Pontiac Grand Prix, all were on the same platform. They called it the Colonnade because of because of all the roof pillars.
Ready to go chase Rockford!
the 73 Regal, Grand Sport , Century were really nice handling cars. Both of mine were super performance suspensions and built 350-4. Wish I had my 73 Regal back again. Midnight Blue with blue top. All my years I've only seen two like mine. We really built up The 73 GS. When Better automobiles are built, BUICK will build them 😉
Should've tested one with the Stage 1 option!
Yes!...Buick was slightly late to the Muscle Car party, but when they decided to jump in...they did a great job!...The Stage One was among the very quickest of all the more famous brands back around 1970...5.7 seconds 0-60 was blisteringly fast back then!
those bumpers, lol
I know . My 73 was great inside though. I was surprised how hard I got it to run with the few aftermarket parts available
@@jamessharp9790 those were fairly low compression engines, right?
@@CharlesFlahertyB 8.5:1 in 73 form
@@edmessina8392 wow, lol
Yep lol. In the mid 70's they said that's it! lets put heavy battering rams on the Gremlins to the larger than life Bonnevilles. Clear a path that'll show em' ( :
Doing 180's all day long is important.
Tuna Boat, but cool
Grandpa didn’t need no traction control!!
Not bad performance for a Buick...in 1973! That was 270 net hp which would have been the equivalent of over 325 gross hp. Even the '74 model was only down 15 hp and that was probably thanks to catalytic converters.
Good car, but how many mpg ?
From experience--10-15 mpg. Gas was 30 cents a gallon...today, that would be like $2.50/gallon.
Fugly 73 model with smogger 455. In fairness next to an SD Trans Am this was as good as it got I guess.
That thing handles like a wheel barrow full of water.
Led sled..
Strange I don't remember this car, it reminds me of the,'76 Pontiac Grand Am. But this car? It was unique for '73, though.
🤔 I wonder why they didn't show that burnout from the driver's side? 😏
Anyone know how much HP a 1973 455 engine made??
He says in the video. 270 net horsepower in this car.
Thank god they don’t make them like they used to.
Before it was called the “Rockford”, the reverse spin out was known as the Joey Chipwood….back when people could drive and the cars were comfortable… now it’s all a joke
What. A. Boat! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
0-70 I like it better than 0-60
Car is sliding out of control and they say the lower cost models won’t handle that good 😂
It was never "out of control"...pay attention.
Hilarious😅 Honest to a fault.
Instead of the Fast & Furious, this would be "The Big & Thirsty"...
Love both but Buick looking abit too Pontiac
This boat anchor is as exciting as a trip to the dentist for fillings
Too judgmental, dude!...all a matter of context.
I'd take this over the other GMs just because the engine..looks aside.
that thing is slower than joe
GM A-bodies got ugly in 1973. I can't decide if the Buicks or the Pontiacs were the uglier of the divisions.
The car didn't have a limited slip differential.
Most of the GM mid-size muscle cars of the 60s came with a 3.91 open diff. I never understood it then, and even this neutered smog-era '73 needed posi badly. I wonder how much better the acceleration times would have been?
@@paulplack490not much.
@@paulplack490 The tires of the era were crap too. The acceleration times sound like jokes today, but just moden tires might shave a half to one sec off those quarter miles.
270 Hp,, with a 455?
Yup...smog controls!...that same engine, in the later 1960s, had 375hp...plus, vehicles were rated a different way in the 1970s...the hp was measured NOT at the engine, but back at the end of the drive line...and smog regulations clearly choked those engines, at least until Cat converters were used.
@@curbozerboomer1773 false about the HP being rear tire not engine. They were engine, but driving oil pump water pump alternator etc. and through the stock exhaust manifolds. The old gross figures didn't measure any of that. And it's BS that smog control and cats choked the engines. I've had a 400HP 5.0L and 490HP 4.3L with a LOT cleaner exhaust than this.
@@lqr824 The emissions controls of the 1970's took hundreds of HP out of cars and ruined them. The automakers overcame the performance deficits with technology. Imagine what the cars would have done today if they were unhindered by smog rules.
@@henrystowe6217 > Imagine what the cars would have done today if they were unhindered by smog rules.
Probably pretty much the same. Outputting smog hardly makes a car go faster. It means you're not burning the fuel completely, and thus not extracting maximum power from it. It's absurd to fantasize about cars actually being faster with less complete burning. You know nothing about cars or engineering or technology and you shouldn't mention these topics again because people laugh at you louder and louder. You also know nothing of the health effects of pollution. Do you feed your kids lead paint chips? If not why not?
@lqr824 You dont know anything either. the more efficiently you burn fuel, oxides of nitrogen increase. The benefit of that was reduced CO and HC. Old emission control systems used EGR to and air pumps to lower combustion temperatures for NOX reduction. Lower combustion temps reduce engine efficiency. Because of todays emissions standards, we are faced with accepting lower power outputs. Catalytic converters and electronic fuel injection went a long way to reduce all exhaust emissions. But people who talk about the "health effects" of so called pollution really dont care about efficiency or anything else. They want to make driving so unpleasant to stop people from driving entirely. Thats the truth in the whole argument.
Oh jezzzzzzzzz,, They couldn't just come out and say it was under powdered and handled like shit. They still had to sell cars. 😃😃😃Sad time for Buick.
It doesn't handle bad at all for 1973. Try a ford LTD OF THAT YEAR. The front end bounces up and down like a pogo stick
Once again--a matter of time and place.
My family had a Mercury Marque... Basically the luxury version of the LTD... It was an awful car. @@busman2050
Huge muscle car fan here. These were boats! Zero handling. Slow.
Those cars needed gas all the time.
Probably around 9 mpg?
Just like you need hot air!
1974 the cars went to the poorer performance
the 73 Pontiac Grand Am was much better.
Dang...the Chevy 283 had more horsepower than this barge! Yeah, I understand the gross vs net horsepower thing, but I still remember these years when they defanged the muscle and family cars and how disappointing it was when you could no longer twist both tires with a big block. A real disgusting memory was from 1975 when a girlfriend's dad bought her a little Chevy Monza with a 350. Took it out all excited do a torture test. Went to do a power brake and it couldn't even turn one tire. Repulsive!
The 283 might have made more horse power, but the Buick was the king of low and midrange torque. You had to wind the 283 mouse motor to high rpm to get its hp. But the grunter Buick was making serious torque between around 1800 to 4400 rpm. (Up to and over 510 foot pounds worth.) And the Buick big block was pretty light for its size. But not featherweight 283 light weight. The magic number for hp vs torque is 5252 rpm, where the two ratings meet. Then hp produced rises above torque. Big block Buicks generally did not hag out at that level of RPM or higher. But many a mouse motor did.
No it didn’t. The top dog was the 283 hp 283, the first engine to achieve 1 hp/cubic inch. This was the GROSS rating, which would have been around 225 hp NET.
You say you "understand the gross vs net hp thing," but you clearly don't. Off the top of my head the most powerful 283 was 315 gross hp in the Vette. Even with all the restrictions this makes 270 net hp, which if you were to dyno them side by side is obviously more. And with still decent hp and gobs of torque, I'm sure this thing had zero problems lighting up the tires. These car are also a lot more than just their engines (which could be brought back to previous hp levels relatively easily). Styling (which is subjective) aside, they were better in EVERY other way than what came before them.
It didn't even have a posi rear 😂. Yeah before EPA destroyed everything in life with The environmentalist wackos😂😂😂😮😮😮
Air was really bad in those years, sometimes really bad smog. Now a lot better
@@busman2050 maybe I guess 🤔
EPA didn't destroy everything. I've had 400HP 5.0L and 490HP 4.3L that are both EPA compliant, both naturally aspirated. GM corporate vision was simply crap in those years.
@@lqr824 whatever you say.
250 lb torke not 550