1967 Olds GS

dawgmeat

I just got a 1967 Olds Cut. G.S. And the only
thing I can find out about the motor is I think it
is a 330cid. I have not found out anything about
this motor EXE. it was made from 64 to 67. Must
Olds Motors of the year have the CID stamped on the
tran block mounting rig but this one only says 330
it this the right place to look and if not where
or how can I tell what it is . Or if there is
someone out there who can tell me more about this
motor I'd love to hear from them
Thank willy ( dagmeat422@hotmail.com)

Mr_Shiftright

The engine number is stamped on a machined pad at the front of the right cylinder head. Your engine should have a "W" prefix...the "hot" 330 (320HP) has a "G" suffix, the others no suffix (260HP).

If you see a "33" sequence in your VIN number, this has nothing to do with the engine...your VIN probably starts with 33807 or 33817 if its a coupe, and 33867 if a convertible.

speedshift

All I know about that engine is that it has a really short stroke. Olds always kept the horsepower rating up--310 hp, then 320. The first 442, in '64, was actually a police package Cutlass with the 330.

isellhondas

It's not a 442 is it? G.S. was a Buick term.

Mr_Shiftright

He said Olds Cutlass, so that's what I gave him. But a 260HP engine was standard for the 330 that year, with higher HP optional. If it was a Skylark GS it would have a 340 engine.

So just go look at the engine number like I told you and you'll know what you have there.

speedshift

GS confused me too, but a guy should know whether he's got an Olds or not, so I think it's a Cutlass Supreme. As I recall, they have a stylized "CS" emblem and maybe the C looks like a G. By the way, most Skylark GS's would have had a 400. When will we see Nigel in a Buick?

Mr_Shiftright

If you can find him a decent '55-56 two door hardtop or 2 dr post sedan, maybe real soon!

The Skylarks came in standard, 350s and 400s, so it depends on which "series" of GS, year, etc. I'd guess that most GS didn't have the 400 but that's just a guess, based on buying habits. Again,we'd need to see serial #s to know for sure.

isellhondas

That CS does look like a GS.

And Buick kinda diluted the original Gran Sports, didn't they?

In '65 and '66 they had the 401 engine with 325 H.P. standard. These were FAST!

Then they used the G.S. on other Skylarks with lesser engines.

speedshift

The small-block GS's got off to a slow start, no pun intended, because the 340 in the '67 (and '66 California Special) was such a slug. By '70 you could get 325 hp in the GS350 and you saw a fair number of these, probably because insurance rates were going up on the big-blocks.

isellhondas

They weren't THAT bad. My parents bought a new Skylark in 1966. It was a 340/250HP. It would whip a 327/250hp Impala with ease...I know..!

Remember the Stage I models? I saw one of these make a pretty quick GTO look like a 6 cylinder!

Mr_Shiftright

Stage Is are awesome...remind me of Bentley turbos---tons and tons of steel hurtling at great speed. Frightening...

speedshift

I defer to isell's greater experience with the 260hp(?) 340. My grandparents had a '67 Skylark but it had the 220hp(?) 340 and what felt like a 2.56 rear end. I ended up driving the car quite a bit and, while it was a great luxury car, it seemed less responsive than my parents' 283 Impala. The GS package, with forty more hp and maybe a 3.23, would have been sprightly. The real limitation was the valve size (and the long stroke).

I've always been a big fan of Buicks, and of the Stage I (and II) in particular, although I think for pure romance a dual-quad nail valve Riviera would be my choice. Not only were the Skylark GS's very fast, but the '70 had an exceptionally nice dashboard.

isellhondas

Come to think of it, I think you are right. I think that 66 Skylark did have 260 H.P.

The Stage I and II's were incredible.

Then, the music died when the smog gurus decided to bog them down with emission equipment, lower the compression ratios, do away with premimum leaded gas, etc....sigh..

Mr_Shiftright

I think you have to look at the bigger picture...the first emissions controls were awful, but they eventually lead to computerized engine management systems, which allow modern engines to outperform the old "muscle cars", and with smaller engine size and much greater fuel efficiency. It was a painful transition, but a useful one in the long run I think.

isellhondas

But there were some very dark days, weren't there?

Smog pumps, primitive smog reducing devices, lean burn carbs, etc.

Do you remember in around 1973, in California, all cars built during a certain time had to have a NOX devise installed?

We used to cut the top radiator hose and splice these miserable things in. I remember they would cut off the distributor advance unless the car was about to overheat. They were awful!

Still, these primitive devices were needed (I guess) and took us to where we are today.

I also remember my mechanics cooling down choke springs by giving them a blast of R-12!

We didn't know what we were doing to the ozone layer!

speedshift

Sure, the story has a happy ending, but you young whippersnappers should realize that we geezers wandered in the wilderness for a good fifteen years or so. (You can show your appreciation for our sacrifice by sending cash.) The musclecar era ended about the same time the Woodstock era died out. We weren't all street racers or hippies, but it was a little disconcerting to see popular lifestyles lose their relevance almost overnight. When the '72s were introduced it was like someone had turned out the lights. Obviously I still have issues with this.