fx5 and Pro 3 comparison check it out!!

[piscavore pisces]

that was a good read. i was going to get an eheim pro II but now i'm on the hunt for a pro III since i saw it at drfostersmith for the same price. the thing is its on backorder at drfostersmith. does anybody know any other online sites that has the pro III 2128 for $314.99 or less?

 

[Joefish]

Pro 3-Bio

FX5 mech.


quite simple both have there plus's both do what they were ment to do.

need a Bio filter get a Eheim need good mech filtration get a FX5. but in NO way is the Eheim pro 3 a better mech filter then the FX5, and in NO way is the FX5 a better bio filter then the Eheim.

 

[Plumber]

Personally, I don't get the whole price comparison thing. I mean we all spend many hundreds if not thousands of dollars on our systems so what's another $50-$100. Buy what you think your system needs.

 

[rumblesushi]

Personally, I don't get the whole price comparison thing. I mean we all spend many hundreds if not thousands of dollars on our systems so what's another $50-$100. Buy what you think your system needs.

I agree, and you'll get back what you spent in the first year with half the electricity costs, and healthier fish

 

[Ducati996]

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.

I guess your right - why limit the advantages one has over the other. I guess I meant to just state the obvious - if it has double the capacity over the other, a logical conclusion is that it should have better performance in that area. We already knew that just by reading the specification. I personally will always take an mechanical advantage over bio anyday. mechanical translates into clearer and cleaner water quality, which my personal opinion is also supported by actual user feedback (on this board) who see how quickly tanks clear up after setting up an FX5.
The bio that is supported by the Fx5 is more than sufficient to do the task at hand. This test implies that its inadequate, for which it is not in any shape or form. All it means is that the Eheim has an improvement (based on its volume advantage) from an already impressive benchmark level capacity.

 

[Ducati996]

I forgot to add this important little footnote:

Fluval offers only one model that falls into a very competitive arena, and thats the FX5

Eheim offers a number of different models that all kind of fall in the same arena. Some fall short in comparision to the FX5 and some are more capable or feature rich.
There are considerably more models to choose from on the Eheim side of things. And with those features sometime add's additional costs. The point being only one model is presented from Fluval to compete in the area.

 

[rumblesushi]

Ducati - with all due respect mech. filtration is NOT more important than bio filtration.

You could fill an fx5 with NOTHING but filter floss, ie not even sponges, and the tank is gonna look sparkling clear. Yet you could still have ammo and nitrite. Clear water doesn't equate to pristine water conditions.

IN the same vein you could fill the fx5 with nothing but ehfisubstrat, no sponges or floss, the water might look a little murky, have some sediment around etc, but you'll have no ammonia and nitrite.

THey are both important of course - I whack loads of polywool in my canisters to have crystal clear water and I also have a UV steriliser and a tap water filter (because the water is TERRIBLE in this country) but bio filtration is the most important.

I guarantee you that in the 2 scenarios I offered, the fish are gonna thrive better in the tank that only has ehfisubstrat rather than only polywool, even though the mechanical scenario is going to have better looking, clearer water.

Like I said - if I can get a cheap FX5 I might give it a go, it performed better than I expected, although I'm a little worried about the hoses coming loose as several people have posted.

And ducati - if the flow rates were as advertised, I would have thought the fluval's bio performance would be just as good, I would have thought THAT much extra flow rate would compensate for the less media and even the performance. I expected the flowrate to be the same, eheim give more accurate flow rate stats. In my experience eheim classics listed with less flow rates are at least as powerful as a fluval 404, and they don't clog as easily- they have very powerful high torque pumps.

That's the thing I don't like about internal filters. You can get a filter listed with a higher output than an eheim canister, yet the flow drops to like 30 gallons an hour after a couple of days.

 

[HarleyK]

Howdy,

Great report Thanks for posting the link.

It compared the newest models, but I would have loved to see how the Eheim 2260 compared. It would flunk set-up and maintenance since it's an old design. But then, I set up a filter only once. It has even bigger media capacity and a flow rate above the Pro 3. I bet with wise selection of media, it would come in first for both, mech and biofiltration.

Thanks for keeping the follow-up discussion constructive

HarleyK

 

[Ducati996]

Ducati - with all due respect mech. filtration is NOT more important than bio filtration.
You could fill an fx5 with NOTHING but filter floss, ie not even sponges, and the tank is gonna look sparkling clear. Yet you could still have ammo and nitrite. Clear water doesn't equate to pristine water conditions.

I never said to pick one over the other or to only use one. Both are important, however in my experience the mechanical is more so. Keep in mind the bio rates are excellent for both -please keep that in mind. Eheim just has the edge.

As for Bio and flow rate - I was under the impression the water needs to move slower in order for the bio to work effectively....

 

[rumblesushi]

ducati - funny thing is logic dictates both. On one hand more water flow = more of the tank being filtered per minute/hour etc, so surely any waste is detoxified more quickly. On the other hand eheim say they have moderate flows, not REALLY high on purpose, as the more contact the bio media has the better.

Which also makes sense I guess, more chance of the waste being detoxified on the first pass through the bio media.

Half the time with you ducati I am just kidding around. Afterall they are just aquarium filters, no point really getting worked up

One thing I'll say though, is although the flow on an eheim is less than the FX5, the pumps are very powerful, jsut regulated. They have great power and torque, and by that I mean it's VERY VERY hard to clog them.

I've had eheims running for months untouched, and when I've gone to change the filter wool it's obviously just a big brown sludgey mess, yet I honestly can't detect ANY drop in flow rate at all. Where as when I had a fluval 404, the flow would drop dramatically in half a week, I'm not kidding. And I'd have to change the filter wool and use less of it.

That's the main reason I like eheims, the pumps are top notch, class A. Long lasting, and enough power to never clog.

Have you noticed any drop in flow rate with your FX5 between replacing the filter wool etc?

I'd say the 2nd reason for me liking the eheim classics in addition to the strong pumps, is the intake right on the bottom, so no bypassing of media.