2 FX5's vs 4 Eheim 2217's

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
I would think puting in a wetdry and getting an overflow would be the ultimate way to go. You would then have the wetdry going which even a small one would be alot better than canister filters since you have no air to give the bacteria.
the new wetdry ehiem the big one for like 300 would also be very very cool and pack it with substrate goos luck keep us posted and pics of the cool tank would be nice!
 
Ducati996 said:
What the heck do you want to put in there that will cost that much to fill? You have three baskets to fill - about the size of the full boxes of ceramic rings for each baskets. I filled one with 4 bags of Chemi-pure the rest with bio max ceramic rings (or similair). Sure as heck didnt come out to $75 -$100 to fill them....If you want to learn more about the FX5 you should do a search on this site - lots of good things said about them....

Duc
Click to expand...


Duc: Having never used an FX5, I perhaps miscaluclated, thank you. How many boxes of Bio Max are needed to fill the entire FX5? (about $15/box on line, correct?) Thanks.

TF, RM, and HG: As far as the very good suggestion to employ a wet dry, my tank is NOT drilled and not open on the top except for two large portals. Therefore, I don't beleive that the overflow mechanism for a wet dry can be hooked up. (The current wet dry that I'm employing is built in to the back of the tank. A Tenecor design, which, while very asthetically pleasing because it's hidden, is not really designed for big messy fish with a heavy bio load.) Hence my decision to go with cannisters.
 
if you only need bio filtration then why not go with fluidized bed filters. you can even make your own if you wanted to. just a thought.
 
I have Eheim 2217'sa and also Eheim 2028's on set-ups as well as my 2 FX5's.
The FX5's have 325 sq in foam area (which can also be used for bio-media instead),
5.9 litre biological volume and an overall filter (canister volume of 20 litres!)
4 Eheim 2217's? No! Why?
1. 4 sets of 2 pipes (unsightly).
2. Not efficient in terms of ongoing costs - electricity consumption.
3. They are relatively old filters now, hence the Pro, Pro 2 and now Pro 3 series, they are not easy to maintain (no baskets)
4. The overall pump output would be less. 2217 1000 lph gross (750 lph net under load)
FX5 3500 lph gross (2300 lph net under load)
So you shall have 3000 lph (Eheims) or 4600 lph (Fluvals)
In terms of the impeller being at the bottom of the canister to minimise any potential problems (deoending on your subtrate) ensure the outtake are at least 4" above your substrate level. The Eheim/Fluval debates interest me, and in 30 years fishkeeping I was a total Eheim man from 1992 until this year, until the FX5 came out. The biggest Eheim now, the 2080 DOES have a huge bio-volume BUT after the demise of the 2234 bucket filter in the early 90's, we had the 2260, now the 2080 as the top of the range, the problem being each one had a SMALLER output each time...
I personally used an Eheim 2234 (3500 lph gross) plus a 200 litre sump/wet/dry trickle in a 31" RTC 1250 litre set-up in 1992 and it worked really well.
Personally I would go with either 2 FX5's or a sump tank with a huge pump (such as an AquaMedic Ocean Runner 6500 - 6,500 litres per hour net) that's 1900 lph more than the 2 FX5's combined net output. Hope this is of help to you.
 
I like his post as well - straight forward with no made up B.S which tends to follow when defending a particular brand and the position is lost...
 
Mentzer said:
I have Eheim 2217'sa and also Eheim 2028's on set-ups as well as my 2 FX5's.
The FX5's have 325 sq in foam area (which can also be used for bio-media instead),
5.9 litre biological volume and an overall filter (canister volume of 20 litres!)
4 Eheim 2217's? No! Why?
1. 4 sets of 2 pipes (unsightly).
2. Not efficient in terms of ongoing costs - electricity consumption.
3. They are relatively old filters now, hence the Pro, Pro 2 and now Pro 3 series, they are not easy to maintain (no baskets)
4. The overall pump output would be less. 2217 1000 lph gross (750 lph net under load)
FX5 3500 lph gross (2300 lph net under load)
So you shall have 3000 lph (Eheims) or 4600 lph (Fluvals)
In terms of the impeller being at the bottom of the canister to minimise any potential problems (deoending on your subtrate) ensure the outtake are at least 4" above your substrate level. The Eheim/Fluval debates interest me, and in 30 years fishkeeping I was a total Eheim man from 1992 until this year, until the FX5 came out. The biggest Eheim now, the 2080 DOES have a huge bio-volume BUT after the demise of the 2234 bucket filter in the early 90's, we had the 2260, now the 2080 as the top of the range, the problem being each one had a SMALLER output each time...
I personally used an Eheim 2234 (3500 lph gross) plus a 200 litre sump/wet/dry trickle in a 31" RTC 1250 litre set-up in 1992 and it worked really well.
Personally I would go with either 2 FX5's or a sump tank with a huge pump (such as an AquaMedic Ocean Runner 6500 - 6,500 litres per hour net) that's 1900 lph more than the 2 FX5's combined net output. Hope this is of help to you.
Click to expand...


nice post Mentzer very informative
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom