Jump to content

1998 K1500 GMC 4.3L won't start after changing intake manifold gas


Ike42

Recommended Posts

Posted

I replaced my intake manifold gasket on my 1998 GMC truck K1500, 4.3L Vortec, 188,000 miles. After I got it all back together it will not start at all. It cranks well but fires only a little, like maybe on on cylinder. There is spark at each spark plug and the distributor timing is correct. I verified that the spider is connected to the proper cylinders in the intake. I do not smell any fuel at the exhaust.

 

It WILL run a few seconds on starting fluid.

 

The truck started and ran fine before I did this work on it.

 

The battery was disconnected for a couple days.

 

I don't have a fuel pressure gauge or a noid light yet, so I have not checked those.

 

Does any one have any ideas for common things that I may have done to cause this?

 

Thanks

 

 

Posted

Go over everything and make sure you didn't miss a connector or vacuum line - very easy to do, as there's a billion of them all over these engines.

 

If it seems to start for a second and then die, with the "security" light flashing, check for a blown fuse in the under-hood fuse block.

Posted

JS,

I looked it over again and I don't see any connectors that were left off. No security light flashing, engine won't start at all now.

 

I got a loaner noid light and checked that each circuit is making the light flash. They are all working.

 

Then I got a fuel pressure tester. It reads 59- 60 PSI Key on, engine off. It loses about 5 psi in 5 minutes after turning off the key,

 

I have pulled the upper intake off again and am thinking of trying to clean the poppet valves portion pf the injectors.

 

The MFI conversion sounds good but can't afford it right now.

  • 1 year later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Okay, a follow-up to what I did to get my 4.3L Vortec running again:

 

I removed the fuel injector spider and searched on how to clean it. The majority of the forums stated to not bother and to upgrade from the Central Sequential Fuel Injection (CSFI) to Multi-Port Fuel Injection (MPFI) system.

 

So I order a new MPFI spider from RockAuto for just under $180, installed it, and the engine started up on the first turn of the key. The local parts store wanted $316 for their version of the same part, by the way.

 

Several days later I have to admit that I never realized how hesitant the engine was when I hit the gas. This new fuel injection system was well worth the money, the engine is very responsive and there is not a hint of hesitation when I stomp on the gas.

Posted

Okay, a follow-up to what I did to get my 4.3L Vortec running again:

 

I removed the fuel injector spider and searched on how to clean it. The majority of the forums stated to not bother and to upgrade from the Central Sequential Fuel Injection (CSFI) to Multi-Port Fuel Injection (MPFI) system.

 

So I order a new MPFI spider from RockAuto for just under $180, installed it, and the engine started up on the first turn of the key. The local parts store wanted $316 for their version of the same part, by the way.

 

Several days later I have to admit that I never realized how hesitant the engine was when I hit the gas. This new fuel injection system was well worth the money, the engine is very responsive and there is not a hint of hesitation when I stomp on the gas.

 

 

Thanks for the follow up . Glad that took care of it.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
    • 2024 Silverado 2500 HD LTZ grille no camera Parts list   84603331 84913656 84913657 84913654 84913655 84911567 84911568 85646092 85646093 85797921 85797922   11570637  x10-15   grille/bumper bolts 11546500  x10      grille clips 11571006  x10      push/retainer clips 11546454  x6       nut retainers 11611609  x6       M5 bolts 11610700  x6       molding/trim retainers
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...