ac110 actual flow rate put to the test. here are my results.

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
S

skillzizzo

Plecostomus
MFK Member
Feb 18, 2007
908
36
61
45
Mesa - Arizona
Hello fellow fish heads. I have been meaning to do this test for awhile but just got around to it. Dont think this has been covered yet in a real test if it has sorry and mod feel free to delete this posting.

First off on the box of my ac110's it say 500gph flow rate. The way that i tested the actual flow rate was to simply put a five gallon bucket under the stream of the filter and time how long it took to fill up the bucket. All were done with it on high each test i did 5 times to get accurate results. Results are as follows.

filter with no media at all not even the sponge. took 1 minute to 1 minute and 5 secounds varying each time so i used a minute for the scale. equaling

5 gallon bucket at 1 minute to fill equals 300 gallons per hour by simply doing the math. Five gallons a minute times 60 minutes in a hours. 5x60=300

Then i tried it with verious different amounts of media. first with just the sponge. Then with what it comes with the sponge 1 bag of carbon and one bag off bio max. Then half a sponge and three boxes of fluval biomax which is what i normally run mine with. And surprisingly all the test with all the different kinds and amounts of media were the same as the filter being empty. I was shocked on that. So my results were no matter what was in the filter the results were the same 300gph.

The only thing that mad a difference in the flow rate was testing it with a filstar prefilter which i run on mine. http://www.fosterandsmithaquatics.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=3578+3579+21426&pcatid=21426
Those test it took 1 minute and 15 secounds to fill the 5 gallon bucket to equal. only 225 gph with the prefilter on it.


I allso tried these test with one of the filter exstensions. And both of the filter exstenison thinking that the further it had to pull the water up would make a difference. But it did not the results were the same. I allso did the test with my tank half full of water and as full of water as i could get it with out having water spill in from the tank which was about 2 inches from the top. All these were done on a 75 which dont think tank size would matter any with the results of the flow rate. And i did use two seperate ac110's for the test both results the same.

I tried to cover every bases for my own personaully knowledge of the flow rate of these filters i love so much on smaller tanks. And i have been wanting to know the differences for awhile now. So for every one who owns these filters and to the people who dont and are thinking of buying one. Here are the results put to the test. Thanks for reading and hope this helps some one out.

Further more. I am not claiming to be exspert on these filter these are just my results that i wanted to share.
 
Do you like this more then lets say a knock off canister? I was going to buy one as everyone seems to suggest it, but it just seems like it wouldn't do a good job of mech filtering, but I guess that doesn't matter that much with plecos :ROFL: I see a lot of people use them so the must be somewhat good.
 
A while back I did the same with an AC110 with media, that had just been cleaned. I used a 6 quart cooking pot marked at 4 quarts(one gallon). My results were 9-10 seconds to get a gallon of water which worked out to 360-400gph. This from what I remember as it was probably 3 years ago.
 
:confused: hum i thought more people might be interested in this little exsperiment considering most people on here swear buy these as far as h.o.b. filters are concerned. What are you guys thoughts
 
I think in order to get conclusive results, you need to be a bit more precise with measurements. A 5 gal bucket isn't always 5g, and where in the bucket the water goes to isn't the same each time. Also, seconds count when you extrapolate out to an hour based on minutes/seconds of timing.
 
And this is exactly the reason I never get hung up on flowrates. Emperor 400 is closer to 300 gph, fx5(900 gph) is about 600 and the Rena xp3(350 gph) gets about 180 gph filled with media. I think it's just a marketing strategy that ALL manufacturers use to some extent.... padding their stats.

I use the advertised flowrates as a rough guide, but I usually account for 60-70% for hobs and about 50% for canisters.
 
Clay said:
I think in order to get conclusive results, you need to be a bit more precise with measurements. A 5 gal bucket isn't always 5g, and where in the bucket the water goes to isn't the same each time. Also, seconds count when you extrapolate out to an hour based on minutes/seconds of timing.
Click to expand...

Kinda confused on what you mean by. Were in the bucket the water goes to isnt the same eat time. do you mean to were the water level goes each time isnt the same. I filled the bucket completly full each time it was in the tank so flowing over diddnt matter. And there isnt any other way to do a text on these besides putting a bucket or some thing under the return stream. it not like a return pump with a hose were you can just direct it were ever you want.

Jc1119 said:
And this is exactly the reason I never get hung up on flowrates. Emperor 400 is closer to 300 gph, fx5(900 gph) is about 600 and the Rena xp3(350 gph) gets about 180 gph filled with media. I think it's just a marketing strategy that ALL manufacturers use to some extent.... padding their stats.

I feel ya on taking the maufactories spec and know like 35-40 percent of in account for media. Exct and i dont really get hung up on flow rates. But i do allways test them with new pumps and such but have never done on any kind of h.o.b's simply becuase it is way more of a pain in the bumn

I use the advertised flowrates as a rough guide, but I usually account for 60-70% for hobs and about 50% for canisters.
Click to expand...
 
I got 285-300 gph on actual flow rate tests as well.
My experience with this filter:

Pros:
only 14 watts for amazing actual flow rate of 300 gph or so
$60 shipped from amazon
easy to set up
add some filter floss as top layer and keeps the water ultra clear.

Cons:
lid is very hard to put on correctly
- loud (Much louder than my 2217 at least.) Often the lid gets a little crooked and rattles as well
- you cant put the tank very close to the wall because the AC110 sticks out pretty far from the back of the tank - 6-7 inches or more
- not as easy as you'd think to clean...have to unplug it and lift it off without spilling everywhere, and at least on my tank with a canopy everything gets in the way. Its not awful but the 2217 is much less of a hassle (sorry didnt mean this to be an eheim comparison but those are the 2 filters i have)
- has to be cleaned out fairly often and becomes very annoying (2217 3 months+, AC110 every week or 2)
- lots of media bypass - the media at the opposite end of the filter from the intake hardly gets dirty while the close end and top get much much more dirty. Also you can see a whole lot (maybe even the majority of) the water going straight through without touching any media
- charcoal pack is useless - im not going to spend $10 or so every month to keep replacing - just throw another sponge or something in

Overall for the money its definitely a fantastic filter even tho i listed all those cons - theyre not a huge deal esp for 60 bucks. I personally prefer canister filters but as far as HOB these are BY FAR the best ive tried out of penguin, emperor, and marineland magnum 250. I should emphasize they keep the tank extremely clear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom