After devising a means to block off all but one runner I went through and retested the stock intake manifold this time recording each individual runner’s airflow at 10″ H2O and also the airflow of the entire manifold with all of the runners open.
During the setup and verification that everything was sealed I discovered a possible cause for the low readings on the two runners nearest the throttle body. There’s a port that connects to the F-hose that is set down in the adapter base, shown at the end of the arrow in the picture below. The end inside the manifold opens up right behind the IAT sensor, which is right around where the openings for the first two runners are. This was left unplugged during the preliminary measurements.
My suspicion is that when I remeasure the air velocity at those runners, with the port capped off, the readings across all six will be about equal. I’m holding off on the velocity measurements while I obtain a velocity probe better suited to measuring airflow when the flowbench is configured to exhaust air.
The results of the individual runner measurements, measured in CFM, are shown on the image below.
I had requested the insurance company send me a copy of the CCC Market Valuation report so that I could review it. My research into CCC had caused concern about the accuracy and fairness of their assessment and I intended to scrutinize the report they had generated for my vehicle.
I sent a letter to the insurance adjuster raising my concerns, the body of the letter follows:
Subj: CCC One Market Valuation Report and Claim Payment
Part 1: CCC One Market Valuation Report
I have had the opportunity to review the CCC One Market Valuation report and a number of aspects of the report concern me.
These concerns are related to the following sections:
1) Vehicle allowances
2) Vehicles chosen for comparison
3) Loss vehicle component description
4) Comparison vehicle options
5) Comparison vehicle baseline adjustments
6) Lack of independently verifiable information about comparison vehicles
My explanation for why I have concern about each of these sections follows.
1) Vehicle allowances
The report defines these as “factors influencing value of loss vehicle when compared to typical vehicle.” The loss vehicle has numerous factors that increase the value of the vehicle when compared to a typical vehicle which were not reflected in the market valuation report.
a) The loss vehicle has extensive custom equipment that is not comprised of original manufacturer parts or equipment. A few of these items are as follows:
Full window tint ($180)
FrankenTurbo upgraded Turbochargers ($1175)
StopTech ST40 Brake kit with 332×32 slotted rotors and stainless steel brake lines ($1807)
SSR Comp Ultra lightweight wheels ($1556)
Aquamist “Water Injection” System ($825)
Autospeed TSB Driveline stabilizer bar ($250)
INA Engineering/034Motorsport Exhaust system ($1790)
A complete list of the custom improvements to this car is contained in part 2. These improvements produced a vehicle that is far more reliable and higher performing than a typical vehicle.
b) The loss vehicle has been subjected to rigorous preventative maintenance practices to ensure it functions optimally. This includes:
Strict adherence to manufacturers’ service intervals.
Fuel filter changes every 30k miles; manufacturer allows for lifetime use of single filter.
Timing belt and water pump replacement every 30k miles; manufacturer allows for change every 105k miles.
Oil sample analysis, to ensure motor is healthy, performed every 5-10k miles. (Enclosure 1)
Engine compression analysis, to ensure efficient engine operation, performed at 70k and 100k miles. (Enclosure 2 and 3)
2) Vehicles chosen for comparison
The vehicles selected for comparison have little in common with the loss vehicle aside from the name of the manufacturer and the vehicle model designation.
Similarly equipped vehicles being made available to the marketplace via a sales site that caters to consumers interested in this type of vehicle, with the type of custom equipment installed on the loss vehicle should be chosen. The Audizine Audi car owners website (www.audizine.com) contains a classifieds section where vehicles similarly configured to the loss vehicle can be found. A sampling of some of the vehicle for sale from that site can be found in the attached screen shot (Enclosure 4)
Two of the five comparison vehicles were selected from an Internet website called Swapride.com, an obscure website that has a 301 redirect to the website fyiauto.com. The fyiauto.com domain has been registered for only 1 year. A better-known site such as Cars.com or Autotrader.com would inspire more confidence in the quality of the cars being chosen from the website for comparison to the loss vehicle.
A sampling of comparison vehicles for sale via dealership and private party on Cars.com and Autotrader showed an average listing price $1300 higher than the average listing price developed in the market valuation report. This further erodes my confidence in the accuracy of the report.
3) Loss vehicle component description
There are some errors in the report description of the loss vehicle configuration, these errors are as follows:
Report incorrectly states vehicle is equipped with Standard Aluminum/Alloy wheels.
Loss vehicle is equipped with Ultra lightweight SSR Comp performance wheels purchased for the vehicle on July 26 of 2003 at a cost of $1556.
Report incorrectly states loss vehicle is equipped with a 5 speed transmission.
Loss vehicle is equipped with a 6 speed transmission.
Report incorrectly states vehicle is equipped with Standard 4-wheel disc brakes.
Loss vehicle is equipped with StopTech ST40 calipers, 332×32 slotted rotors, and stainless steel brake lines purchased for the vehicle in August of 2003 at a cost of $1807.
Report incorrectly states vehicle is not equipped with Tinted Glass.
Loss vehicle has full tint application that was purchased and installed on September 1, 2000 at a cost of $180.
Report incorrectly states vehicle has Wood Interior Trim.
Loss vehicle has manufacturer supplied Sport Trim Package which includes Silver Aluminum Trim that was an optional item at vehicle purchase for an additional cost of $400.
4) Comparison vehicle options
In checking the advertisements for the comparison vehicles some discrepancies with the valuation report were noted.
Comparison vehicle 1 is listed for sale with LA Auto Star in Virginia Beach, Virginia. (Enclosure 5)
Report incorrectly states Comp 1 does not have Heated Seats.
Comp 1 advertisement states vehicle has Heated Seats and picture of center console shows controls for heated seats.
Report incorrectly states Comp 1 does not have a CD Changer.
Comp 1 advertisement states vehicle has a CD Changer.
Report incorrectly states Comp 1 does not have Tinted Glass.
Comp 1 advertisement states vehicle has Tinted Glass.
Report states loss vehicle has clear coat paint and none of the comparison vehicles have clear coat paint.
Clear coat paint was not an option item for the 2001 Audi S4; all of the vehicles were supplied with clear coat paint.
5) Comparison vehicle baseline adjustments
Some of the comparison vehicle values seem to be lowered due to the vehicles being in good condition, compared to what condition an average vehicle may be in.
Comp 1 vehicle has the value reduce by $1121 apparently because it is in good condition.
6) Lack of information about comparison vehicles
The only comparison vehicle that is still listed for sale is Comp 1. Verification of the accuracy of the report for the other four vehicles could not be done. The numerous errors identifying the options on the loss vehicle and Comp 1 cause me concern about the accuracy of the values assigned to the comparison vehicles.
Part 1 summary:
Significant factors affecting the value of the loss vehicle have been omitted from the report. Factors included in the loss vehicle valuation have been incorrectly specified. Inappropriate comparison vehicles have been chosen for establishing loss vehicle value. There are errors with the description of the comparison vehicles and four of the five comparison vehicles do not have information available to cross check against the report. The only comparison vehicle that I could find a listing for has had the value of the vehicle reduced for being in good condition, despite the loss vehicle being in outstanding condition.
Due to the errors and omissions contained in the loss valuation report I do not find the reported valuation for the loss vehicle to be valid.
I have some stock fuel injectors which proved handy for plugging the holes in the intake manifold where the fuel injectors would normally go. I suspected that in terms of overall air flow, that is with all of the runners open, the inclusion of the fuel injectors to block the holes would have little to no affect on the airflow value for the intake manifold. The reason being that the holes are less than an inch from the runner outlet and due to the orientation the air flow would have to reverse 180 degrees to exit via the fuel injector hole.
It will be necessary to have these fuel injector holes plugged during single runner tests so putting the fuel injectors in place now was beneficial beyond simply answering the question of whether or not they made a difference to the overall flow.
Intake manifold with fuel injectors installed
The results at 10″ of H2O were not a surprise:
Intake manifold without fuel injectors: 360 CFM
Intake manifold with fuel injectors: 362 CFM.
Because the air flow reading fluctuates as much as 3-4 CFM, even with the bench operating at steady-state, the results for air flow in the different configurations are essentially the same.
