Water volume vs. length vs. width, too much conflicting info...

[PYRU]

I would use the K.I.S.S. method. Keep it simple stupid. If a 125 is the cheapest then I would do that. The length will be utilized a lot more than the width and 18" width is more than enough for a lazy fish like an oscar that might max out at 14".

I don't know why your worried about dead spots just jave adequate filtration with adequate flow. I usually use like a 8-10x tank volume turn over rate with my filters.

 

[jaws7777]

The 125 would be best out of your choices. But i say spend the extra 200 (i think you said money isnt the issue) for the 180

Only because you'll have the tank a long time and you never know what may change in the future. You may want to get into other fish that would greatly benefit the additional width the 180 would give you. Even though there isnt a bif difference in gallons between the 180 and 150 the additional width could open up lots of different stocking options down the road.

I have a 6ft 150 and completely regret not getting the 180 instead

 

[Frank Castle]

Didn't read the whole thread yet, but 1st thoughts are : it will vary depending on the fish for a bottom dweller like large catfish and stingrays , width is more important....for fish like angel fish, silver dollars and anything relatively large an "Pan-shaped" but not necessarily monstrous and bulky, I'd go for height. Anything not in that category, the length has it.

Just my opinion, nothing more....I jumble that same information around in my head from time to time and I still never come to a solid concrete conclusion either direction.

Side note, African cichlids don't care about height you could have a 6 foot tank 10 inches high and they'd love it. I would go for length with all cichlids, but if you have a 20L and a 29, I would always opt for the extra 5" in height cuz im not losing length and the extra 7.5 gallons difference makes maintaining water chemistry 7.5 gallons easier.

 

[ehh]

Didn't read the whole thread yet, but 1st thoughts are : it will vary depending on the fish for a bottom dweller like large catfish and stingrays , width is more important....for fish like angel fish, silver dollars and anything relatively large an "Pan-shaped" but not necessarily monstrous and bulky, I'd go for height. Anything not in that category, the length has it.

Just my opinion, nothing more....I jumble that same information around in my head from time to time and I still never come to a solid concrete conclusion either direction.

Side note, African cichlids don't care about height you could have a 6 foot tank 10 inches high and they'd love it. I would go for length with all cichlids, but if you have a 20L and a 29, I would always opt for the extra 5" in height cuz im not losing length and the extra 7.5 gallons difference makes maintaining water chemistry 7.5 gallons easier.

Silver dollars? No way. Silver dollars need length more than any fish I've ever owned lol.

 

[Frank Castle]

Silver dollars? No way. Silver dollars need length more than any fish I've ever owned lol.

I'll take your word for it. Do you think the same for Pacus, Piranah, Discuss, oceanic Angelfish, Severums, Damsel/Chromis, Tang/Surgeonfish/Doctorfish/Triggers and similarly built fish. They all seem to have a tall flattened appearance, even though some can pack on serious weight. For some reason, something tells me they want a higher tank, not necessarily having to sacrifice length if we don't have too - but if we did, that's a good debate.

 

[ehh]

Im sure most fish would like a taller tank. But I had to choose between a 6' long 125 gallon or 4' long but tall 150, I'd choose a 125 for any species of cichlid.
I haven't seen too many cichlids retreat upwards. The extra length makes a huge difference. Height really doesn't add much.

 

[THQ]

(180)>125>150>120

Out of the 3, 125G by A MILE.

If you can fit a 6 foot tank, it will ALMOST always be better than a shorter fatter tank. Vast majority of fish really enjoy the extra swimming length. Furthermore, the 125G/6footer has the largest footprint of the 3. Footprint is king. It means more territory to spread aggression, more swimming space (fish swim forwards, not up/down most of the time), more aeration and gas exchange, less pressure on support cabinet, better everything, and apparently in your case, the cheapest. It also looks the best. Literally this is the easiest choice ever for me.

The 4 foot 30" high is the most pointless in my opinion. Not only is 30" high a PITA to clean/reach the bottom of (I have 24" high on a standard cabinet and already it's a struggle and I'm 5'10"), that extra height doesn't contribute anything to aeration or territorial agression, etc.

 

[FlanBurberry]

Thanks for all of the info everyone. I think I will probably go with the 125g as it seems to be the consensus on here and other forums. I saw mention of a 180, my only dilema is that the spot where this is going (in my living room) only allows for a 24" depth if Im using a 4' tank, anything beyond that and I only have room for the 18" depth. Thats why these 3 tanks are my only possibility right now.

If I were to only keep the O by himself, Im wondering if the 150 would be a good option. He is already an amazing wetpet, his personality is great, I know they get big, I just feel like in a 6' tank he would literally only hang out in one half (near my couch). No matter where I am in the house, if I am within eyesight of his tank, he is swimming back and forth at the top of his tank wagging his tail (begging for food).

I wonder if that would make a difference to any of you. If your fish had a proven big and interactive personality already would you consider the 48"×24"×30"? That tank would go centered against the side/back wall in my living room. If you picture a box □ the top line is my TV, the bottom line is my couch, and the right line is where the tank is going. It is an 8' wall and there is a doorway to my bedroom in the upper right hand corner along the top. On the 6' tank a little more than a 3rd would tuck behind the right side of my couch, the 4' tank would be completely centered.

He also jumps to grab the food out of my hand almost everytime I open the lid, sometimes straight up out if the water, so I have to keep the water level down slightly (I hope he grows out of this), and I think thats an advantage in the 150 as well. I truly wish there werent so many factors. I wont be living here forever so it isnt as though this is necessarily his for life home, but most likely at least for the next 2 or 3 years at the very least.

 

[ehh]

Even if you kept the water level lower in a 125, he'll be fine.
Go with the 125. I have a 10-11" fish in a 4' tank and I regret it every day. A friend of mine has is oscar in a 125 and he has so much room to move around.

 

[FlanBurberry]

(180)>125>150>120

Out of the 3, 125G by A MILE.

If you can fit a 6 foot tank, it will ALMOST always be better than a shorter fatter tank. Vast majority of fish really enjoy the extra swimming length. Furthermore, the 125G/6footer has the largest footprint of the 3. Footprint is king. It means more territory to spread aggression, more swimming space (fish swim forwards, not up/down most of the time), more aeration and gas exchange, less pressure on support cabinet, better everything, and apparently in your case, the cheapest. It also looks the best. Literally this is the easiest choice ever for me.

The 4 foot 30" high is the most pointless in my opinion. Not only is 30" high a PITA to clean/reach the bottom of (I have 24" high on a standard cabinet and already it's a struggle and I'm 5'10"), that extra height doesn't contribute anything to aeration or territorial agression, etc.

Good points, thanks. The hose/vaccuum I have would reach the bottom from my sink hookup (still more of a pita in general though I agree). Its actually the extra depth that I think is the main feature to me. The height would allow me to build up some scaping on the bottom without having to be too careful about encroaching on swimming space and the extra depth would allow not only turning room but some scaping as well as more movement options for him.

I will admit that Im no expert on O's, but my guy seems to utilize every area of the 40breeder he is currently in. He seems to like swimming from front to back just as much as from side to side, in fact I never see him swim left and right back and forth. Im wondering if most people see that as their oscars behavior because that is how they setup their tanks for them? I wonder in a large cube if the O would swim back and forth in the front portion of the tank or utilize every area?

I know that the 4' is limiting, I just don't picture him as a swim back and forth kind of fish. From his personailty it seems like he is always going to be hanging out in whatever part of the tank will give him the most access to me so that he can beg for food. But again I am no expert, I am definitely taking everyone's advice seriously, I just dont want to dismiss the 150 out of hand without thoroughly talking through it as an option (or lack thereof)...