eheim 2262 or eheim pro3 2080?

[Guerillah]

Yes.... I've got both. Unless you have an extremely large tank, I'd go with the 2080 just for the easier maintenance. Also, you can't underestimate the amount of flow the 2262 puts out. If you're using this on a 125, for instance, you'll have a ton of water movement.....maybe more than you want depending on your stock.

The 2080 has two intakes whereas the 2262 has just one. That said, the 62 moves quite a bit more water and has a bigger media capacity -- it's really a massive workhorse! The 80 is a beast too. If you've never seen these filters in person, well, they're HUGE, and the 62 is particularly big.

If you're a bells and whistles guy, the 80 is your filter. You can easily adjust the output flow, the bio-media fits into easy to use trays, the priming and quick connect functions are state of the art, and you can even get the model with a heater built in. Still, many big aquarium service companies still prefer the 2260's and 2262's for their years of performance and simple construction.

Good info man, its a hard decision. This will be going on a 230 gallon tank that will be heavily stocked.

 

[calamari]

2262. i've used the 2260 and loved it.

 

[tankboy_taylor]

2262

 

[deeda]

I've got the 2262 & a 2217 on my 220G tank. I am presently overstocked with Mbuna cichlids. I love both these filters but am considering replacing the 2217 with either another 2262 or a DIY sump. It only takes me 15 minutes to clean my 2262 but that is because I'm getting better at it.

 

[TheOscarGuy]

Good info man, its a hard decision. This will be going on a 230 gallon tank that will be heavily stocked.

What are you going to stock it with? I personally would prefer an additional 4.5 liter of media (in 60/62) any day over the hassle of cleaning a 2080. Here is the comparison of the two, in terms of media volumes:

http://www.petsolutions.com/Info.aspx?id=59

Added to that you will find a 2260 (if you aren't too picky about the GPH value, and care more about how much bio-load the filter can handle instead) at ~$249 on drsfosterandsmith.com.

Do you think the additional ~$120 is worth paying *only* for easy of cleaning, while still getting lower media volume?

I would advise you go for a 2260/62.

 

[cchhcc]

Not to further confuse the issue, but here is a response I got a few monts back from Eheim about this very question:

Here is the response from Eheim:

"Both Pro 3 and the large Classics (2260 and 2262) provide the same level of filtration. The difference between these units is the ease of maintenance and the flow rate. The 2080 Pro 3 will pump a maximum of 450 GPH while the 2262 will pump the double (900 GPH).

Considering that the Classic series does not have baskets nor a maintenance indicator and can not be used with regular filter pads, I will consider the 2080 as a more complete unit. However if you are looking for more flow, the 2260 or 2262 will be your best choices."


Add to the points they made the lower watt draw of the 2080 (cheaper to operate) and the TWO intakes on that unit, and I also think the Pro III is the top performer for most people. But, you're tank is very large and would probably benefit from the higher flow........... Let us know what you decide!

 

[Fry]

...in terms of media volumes:

http://www.petsolutions.com/Info.aspx?id=59

I doubt the accuracy of this chart, particularly when referring to Rena Filstar xP filters. The media baskets are standard sized - each basket holds the same amount of media, the xP1 has 1 basket, xP2 has 2 and so forth. This link lists their "media capacity" as such:

xP1 4.4l
xP2 6.3l
xP3 9.1l
xP4 11.9l

Obviously this doesn't make sense and is dead wrong since the xP2 is not double the xP1 and the xP3 is not 3 times the media capacity of the xP1. Telling from the numbers, this looks like the overall capacity of the canister, not the media capacity.

The Eheim media capacity information is obviously taken from Eheim's published information.

Please take the numbers referenced in this link with a grain of salt as it doesn't seem that the people who put it together has gathered their information accurately and from the same sources.

 

[cchhcc]

I doubt the accuracy of this chart, particularly when referring to Rena Filstar xP filters. The media baskets are standard sized - each basket holds the same amount of media, the xP1 has 1 basket, xP2 has 2 and so forth. This link lists their "media capacity" as such:

xP1 4.4l
xP2 6.3l
xP3 9.1l
xP4 11.9l

Obviously this doesn't make sense and is dead wrong since the xP2 is not double the xP1 and the xP3 is not 3 times the media capacity of the xP1. Telling from the numbers, this looks like the overall capacity of the canister, not the media capacity.

The Eheim media capacity information is obviously taken from Eheim's published information.

Please take the numbers referenced in this link with a grain of salt as it doesn't seem that the people who put it together has gathered their information accurately and from the same sources.

I totally agree! That and so many similar charts seem to always be seriously flawed.

Plus, the entire idea of rating filter to tank size is nearly purposeless. You filter waste, not water. It is the bioload that should determine the filter, not just the gallons of water.

 

[SovietFireExtinguisher]

Well said, but can you imagine the average person buying a filter that way. I need a filter for 33 fish, and I'm an overfeeder. I would hate to work at a fishstore then yikkes.

 

[tchizzle]

Omg I just saw the specs on the 2262!

That thing is like an uber FX5 looking at the output.
Crazy Germans.