Can anyone compare the FX5 to the eheim 2262?
- Thread starter tcarswell
- Start date
We should get a company to sponsor a contest with thebprize being a 2262 so that we will have someone to heckell for answers. You would not get accurate data from a previously dirty 2262 because you can never clean it as good as it was with the brand new media.
I get 300 from my magnum 350 with just the blue bonded, 248 with the blue bonded and micron cartridge, and empty I get 345 ish.
I love my magnum 350, really good for polishing.
When I get a job, guess where my first 3 or so paychecks are going? Yes, a 2262with media. I think that I have room on the back of by 75 for two more input hoses! With the 2262 empty I would almost be at 3000 gph on that tank! Talk about over filtration.
I think that we all can agree on a few things, the 2262 can kick the arse of even 2 fx5s, but it comes at the cost of 3 fx5s.
I get 300 from my magnum 350 with just the blue bonded, 248 with the blue bonded and micron cartridge, and empty I get 345 ish.
I love my magnum 350, really good for polishing.
When I get a job, guess where my first 3 or so paychecks are going? Yes, a 2262with media. I think that I have room on the back of by 75 for two more input hoses! With the 2262 empty I would almost be at 3000 gph on that tank! Talk about over filtration.
I think that we all can agree on a few things, the 2262 can kick the arse of even 2 fx5s, but it comes at the cost of 3 fx5s.
3 Fx5s would kick the 2262 in the butt for Bio and Mechanical. 1800GPH with 16.5L of bio media. Loads of mechanical surface area.
2 Fx5s, might even up with bio load at 11 L at 1200 GPH with better mechanical filtration. Compared to the 2262 at 500-700 GPH with 16-18L of bio.
I wish someone knew if either higher velocity or lower velocity, with the same contact time, would be better. 2262 would have a lower velocity through its media than Fx5s.
IMO The fx5 should only be used for Biological filtration and a little mechanical with the supplied sponges only because as soon as you go to put some filter pads or polishing pads in, it will create micro bubbles after about 1 week
media capacity 2262: 4.8 galJgray152;2952272; said:
media capacity FX5: 1.5 gal
--> you'd have to get 3 FX5 to have the biopower of one 2262. Then they'd be even for bio. I don't call that "kick butt"...
2 FX5 are outgunned by one 2262.Once you achieve good mechanical filtration (which should be just fine with the flow rate of one of these guys), increasing turnover doesn't do any good unless you house fish from fast-flowing streams.
Jgray152;2952272; said:
Look at Eheim's track record - large canisters with low flow rate. They've been making canister filters since 1963. If you don't trust their experience then I don't know whom you'd trust ...
Lastly, feel free to search this forum for FX5 and Eheim Classics. You will find some user errors for the Eheims, but you will find several reports of equipment failure (though tolerant customer service) for the FX5. And the latter only have been out for a few years. Now who kicks whose butt
HarleyK
--> you'd have to get 3 FX5 to have the biopower of one 2262. Then they'd be even for bio. I don't call that "kick butt"...
You are forgetting about the flow rate advantage.
1800 GPH vs 500-700 GPH. 3 Fx5s would have about 1100-1300 GPH MORE Flow rate. On a 180 Gallon tank, The 2262 @ 700 GPH will have 3.8 CPH, where 3 Fx5s will have 10 CPH. No doubt, 3 Fx5s would kill the 2262 at both mechanical and Biological.
Now, if you want to talk about 2 2262s and vs Fx5s...well... yikes... 6 Fx5s? Space? Although, 6 Fx5s = 3600 GPH. 2 2262s = 1000-1400 GPH
This highly depends on the size of the aquarium. 700GPH should be fine, but most people with large tanks are using flow rates over 1000 GPH for mechanical reasons. Some for Both bio and mech.
This HIGHLY depends on the output position and type as well as tank size. Increasing flow rate WILL perform better where its needed.
I forgot about that. The Comparison between the two filters (2080 and Fx5), you can't know for sure if its the flow rate, the media capacity or both. Without performing tests, you just can't say.
Where did this come from? I was simply stating for MEchanical and Bio purposes. I never once said the Fx5 would last as long or longer than the 2262.
Jgray152;2956890; said:Where did this come from?HarleyK;2955458; said:Lastly, feel free to search this forum for FX5 and Eheim Classics. You will find some user errors for the Eheims, but you will find several reports of equipment failure (though tolerant customer service) for the FX5. And the latter only have been out for a few years. Now who kicks whose butt
Call it a holistic approach
People buy filters because of great flow rates. Others buy filters because of their volumes. The next person buys them because everyone on MFK says it's a great filter. I simply think these are all parts of the puzzle, and so far no one has put them together in this thread. Got another piece? I'm havin' fun 
