Filtration Help
- Thread starter Chago09
- Start date
I use both filter types described and both scenarios (2 x XP3 or 1 x FX5) would be anticipated to produce approximately the same output of approx. 400 gph...give or take, when filled with media. I run 2 XP3s on a well-stocked Dat tank with no carbon, only mechanical and biomedia and they perform beautifully. I have no reason upon which to believe that you will see any difference in terms of water quality and either scenario will cost approx. $200.00. Therefore, I would suggest that you consider other filter-specific features which may have applicability given your individual preferences.
Personally I'd go for the 2 XP3s between those two choices. But beyond that, I'd say 2 Eheim 2217s would be even better.
I don't know what you're filling your FX5 with but all of mine run 650 and 750 GPH filled with media. I have in line flow meters on all of my canisters to keep track of how they are doing.
The ONLY and I do mean only advantage to using two Rena's is simply having two filters so you can stagger the maintaince.
The ONLY and I do mean only advantage to using two Rena's is simply having two filters so you can stagger the maintaince.
I don't know what you're filling your FX5 with but all of mine run between 650 and 750 GPH filled with media. I have in line flow meters on all of my canisters to keep track of how they are doing so I know thats accurate.
The ONLY and I do mean only advantage to using two Rena's is simply having two filters so you can stagger the maintaince.
The ONLY and I do mean only advantage to using two Rena's is simply having two filters so you can stagger the maintaince.