fx5 and Pro 3 comparison check it out!!
- Thread starter dodgefreak8
- Start date
Ducati that biological performance is significant. Less chance of getting an ammonia/nitrite spike.
The FX 5 does sound like a MUCH better filter than their previous range, I'll give it that, but this test coupled with eheim's build quality and reliability = Pro 3 > fx5.
IN Europe the price difference is not that great, but if I find a really cheap FX5 I might get one.
The FX 5 does sound like a MUCH better filter than their previous range, I'll give it that, but this test coupled with eheim's build quality and reliability = Pro 3 > fx5.
IN Europe the price difference is not that great, but if I find a really cheap FX5 I might get one.
rumblesushi;488166; said:
I dont equate that to spikes - once its gone, its gone.....keep in mind they dumped it in the tank - who or how would you get 4ppm all in one shot in real life conditions? unless its a dirty unhealthy tank to begin with - and thats a seperate issue and there is no cure for that
rumblesushi;488596; said:
Overfeeding= sloppy fish keeping - what can be done about that?
Powercut - lack of oxygen is the main killer - wouldnt you agree?
I dont see it as being a reverse osmosis or the opposite as being fact based on the results.
Just because it removed it quicker (not by much) dont forget the additional material required by Eheim to get that result. The test should have been the same media (it was) and the same amount (it wasnt from what i read). We already knew the bio capacity was considerably more over the FX5. Didnt even mention the costs associated with filling up the Eheim with the additional Bio. See my point of contention?
based on this test it clearly shows either filter can handle 4ppm bursts. Plus keep in mind in real life setups, it just dosent start at 4ppm like that, its a gradual to rapid rise and or fall.
Tests can be skewed in so many ways to make anything look good or better than what they are. I think the Eheim is a good filter, and so is the Fx5. the rest is rubbish
Not at all, oxygen lasts long enough in the water, think about all the fish that are shipped overnight.
In this pov country I've had quite a few powercuts for hours during the night.
ANd ducati - I don't understand your reasoning. One of the advantages of the FX5 is the extra flowrate, and one of the advantages of the Pro 3 is the extra media capacity.
Why on earth would you test the Pro 3 without filling it up with media.
The test was both of their real life performances, that's the fairest way. A test wouldn't be fair if you purposefully hindered one of their performances.
You saying the test should be conducted with the same amount of media is like me saying the fluval's flowrate should have been bottlenecked to the same as the eheim pro 3, by making a really small output nozzle or something.
It doesn't make sense, the tests were conducted how both filters perform in a real life situation - ie full of media. And the eheim proved to be the better biological filter, which is the most important thing.
In this pov country I've had quite a few powercuts for hours during the night.
ANd ducati - I don't understand your reasoning. One of the advantages of the FX5 is the extra flowrate, and one of the advantages of the Pro 3 is the extra media capacity.
Why on earth would you test the Pro 3 without filling it up with media.
The test was both of their real life performances, that's the fairest way. A test wouldn't be fair if you purposefully hindered one of their performances.
You saying the test should be conducted with the same amount of media is like me saying the fluval's flowrate should have been bottlenecked to the same as the eheim pro 3, by making a really small output nozzle or something.
It doesn't make sense, the tests were conducted how both filters perform in a real life situation - ie full of media. And the eheim proved to be the better biological filter, which is the most important thing.
it was a good review and even though i am a fx5 owner running 2 of them i always thought the eheim was better.
the fx5s are much cheaper and smaller so it was a no brainer for me.
dixon
the fx5s are much cheaper and smaller so it was a no brainer for me.
dixon
