Flow Quik..?

[Dqracer]

The Flow Quik by Audietech.? Would this be a worth while investment for my future bench..? Along with the software of course. After researching the unit , it seems like it takes all the fun out of figuring everything out with mano's and a calc. Would the 3" unit be a wise choice ,should I want more power later , or will the 2" meet the needs of most of the motors I plan to play with that are 4 cyl.motorcycle or single cylinder 4 strokes.

[larrycavan]

I have a slightly larger than 2" orifice in my bench and it suits my needs well for the same engine groups. I'd say the 3" would probably be fine for your applications.

Larry C

[106-1194218389]

I have a flowquik. The 2" tube will flow around 295 CFM and the 3" will flow around 600 cfm. I will say this, it was a good piece while it lasted. It somehow lost it's calibration and I never could get it back. Audie at Audie Tech tried hard over the phone, but we never could get it to come back. He is a very good guy to work with. With that said, I would just put the money into this PTS flow bench. I would think you could get away with 2 - 4 motors. I have two shop vacs hooked up to mine and I can pull 10.5 inches through a small block Chevy flowing 260 cfm with a 193 cc intake port.

[Bob's57]

Hey I don't know anything about the quick stuff but my buddy bought one of those flow bench kits with the 2 inch flow thing. The electronics daq stuff is real good for this kind of stuff and is the way to go. He said he can get over 400 cfm with a special calibration he set up on his box. I guess his box has lots of different calibrations. I think flow performance has a 21/2 inch flow jobby that is real good if you can't decide on a 2 inch or 3 inch.

[hdwgfx]

[106-1194218389]

[hdwgfx]

thanks for the reply john...

[Dqracer]

Hmmmm, this is all alittle overwelming to a new kid on the block... LOL.. I appreciate your comments, it helps alot in educating myself & trying to figure out the right direction to head with this. I don't have alot of bucks to put something together,($1500) but would like to end up with a unit that will be efficient to use, easy, and reliable . Obtaining repeatable results has got to be a priority, so with the FQ, is it harder to read a minut depression change..?

[JMR]

I've got a FlowQuik and I'm very happy with it. I opted for the 2" and 3" combo, along with Audie's software. Most of my heads flow between 100cfm and 250cfm so the 2" is all I've needed so far. I've plumbed my bench to make for an easy switchover between the two when needed. There are some pics of my bench in the 'Reader's Flowbench Projects' section. The 3" flow tube will be used for testing throttle bodies and exhaust systems. IMO it's worth paying a little extra for the combo as it'll cost a whole lot more to upgrade at a later date.

Repeatability is well within the claimed 1%. As for accuracy - I bought a set of Bruce's PAP plates and flowed them so I could compare my figures with the PAP test results. I don't remember the exact figures but I was very impressed with how close my bench compared with the others in the test. It's reassuring to know your cfm numbers have good accuracy in addition to excellent repeatability!

Audie's software is pretty good too. Took a little getting used to in terms of configuring the reports and graph layout but once you've got it worked out it's nice to use. Carrying out flow tests is super quick - can't believe people still use pencil, paper, calculator etc etc :;):

I also bought Audie's set of flowbench plans. This was before Bruce made his available. If I was starting today I'd most likely build a bench based on the PTS plans and probably investigate the pros and cons of alternative electronics. Having said that, I'd also be more than happy to stick with FlowQuik.

Only issue with building a bench to accommodate the 2" & 3" combo is the amount of floor space it occupies. I have plenty of room so it's not a problem and I find the large worktop surface soon gets filled! If space is an issue it looks like the PTS bench is a very neat solution.

I also purchased Audie's motor controller. It makes it incredibly easy to adjust flow at each lift increment. I was originally going to incorporate a bleed-off valve into the cabinet but this is much better. Can't imagine flowing a head without it. I aim to keep test pressure as close to 28" throughout the test, minimising the amount of correction the FlowQuik processor has to apply. Very easy to achieve with the flow control.

Hope that helps.

PS I'm not associated with Audie/FlowQuik etc.... just a happy customer.

[115-1172523331]

Dqracer, I had an opportunity to use a friend's 2 inch FlowQuik (but he wanted it back)! It did everything I wanted and was easy to use. As JMR said, configuring the software graphs and reports was a little "strange" and I didn't have it long enough to really get used to it. As a former developer of software for the military, I wasn't too happy with the documentation. But Audie does keep updating his software package and I also contacted him via email to find out how to do something. Good response on the email!

I built a 12 inch cube for a settling chamber and ran with my shop vac so I was running in a couple of days. My 100cc motorcycle engines don't flow too high so I let the software correct to 28 inches without any motor control. Quite repeatable but I didn't have any test plates to check for accuracy. Having returned my friend's to him, I decided to learn more and ended up here. Now I have my own (pitot style before Bruce had his plans available) and am still trying to learn more than I knew existed! I think the 2 inch Audie unit could fit nicely into a compact cabinet (but I don't know about the 3 inch and combo units).

All that said, if you are a handyman type, in the long run I think the PTS style bench (and new hardware/software) is in your price range and is a better value. -- slracer

[Bob's57]

Hey jfholm, what kind of material do you use for a orifice? My boss has to calibrate his bench almost everyday and replace the orifice every few months. He took a look at tungsten and ruby but they cost way to much