Getting back into it
- Thread starter Greenspot
- Start date
Buying the FX6 will be more money up front, but will be using less than half the wattage two sunsun's would use and only be one canister to half to crack open and clean. Pair the FX6 with an AC110 and you'll still have much less power consumption, two filters for redundancy, easier cleaning, higher turnover rate, and in a few years save the money you spent up front on the FX6 versus the Sunsuns.
Power consumption is a trade-off with the SunSun filters. My 303B uses 35W for the filter and 9W for the UV for a total of 44W (unless the 9W is included in the 35W, but I assume it is not). The larger 304B uses 55W and 9W for the UV for a total of 64W. The UV can be turned off with a switch if you want to save power. The Fluval FX6 comes in lower at 43W. For the price difference, I think this is acceptable and would still recommend the SunSun over the Fluval. I also think that having the UV built in is a benefit. The water flow is probably too high to do a great amount of "sterilizing" but it will definitely help keep the water clear.
Btw, to put the wattage into perspective, the smallest regular light bulb typically found in the house is 40W. A lot of times your light bulbs are 100W+ and probably average around 75W. The SunSun HW-304B is still probably less than your average regular light bulb. If you are really counting watts then maybe the Fluval will work better but I think it will take many many years, maybe decades for the cost difference between the two to be made up in electrical savings. Also, when comparing the Fluval, make sure you compare the working flow that is about 500+ gph instead of the advertised pump flow of 900+ gph. The Fluval will probably flow a bit more but I don't think it is a deal breaker by any means.
JMO, but I don't see any wrong choice between the two.
Btw, to put the wattage into perspective, the smallest regular light bulb typically found in the house is 40W. A lot of times your light bulbs are 100W+ and probably average around 75W. The SunSun HW-304B is still probably less than your average regular light bulb. If you are really counting watts then maybe the Fluval will work better but I think it will take many many years, maybe decades for the cost difference between the two to be made up in electrical savings. Also, when comparing the Fluval, make sure you compare the working flow that is about 500+ gph instead of the advertised pump flow of 900+ gph. The Fluval will probably flow a bit more but I don't think it is a deal breaker by any means.
JMO, but I don't see any wrong choice between the two.
At the national average of $.12 a kilowatt hr using an online calculator, a FX6 and AC110 will cost approximately $61.00 a year to run at a combined 58 watts between the two. With the added 9 watts per UV, two Sunsuns run 128 watts. That works out to about $134.00 a year. For a difference of $73.00 a year. An FX6 AND AC110 will run about $380 online. Two Sunsuns will be about $170. For a difference of $210. So, in 3 years you'll have recouped what you spent up front and be saving another $73.00 a year.
I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing this out.
I do think that the comparison should be based on the power consumption without the UV wattage since the FX6 and AC110 do not have these as an option but even then you are right. There would be a $54 difference per year in running each of them. This would equate to a slightly longer recoupe period of a hair under four years but definitely not as long as I originally thought.
Thank you for pointing out the electricity calculator. I have never thought to check for one of those online before.
I do still think the SunSun filters are a good choice, especially if startup costs are limiting but as you have shown, the long run cost effective option would be the FX6 and AC110. You just need the startup money to put into them.
This does bring me to the question of why the SunSun filters use so much power vs other filters with similar characteristics.
I do think that the comparison should be based on the power consumption without the UV wattage since the FX6 and AC110 do not have these as an option but even then you are right. There would be a $54 difference per year in running each of them. This would equate to a slightly longer recoupe period of a hair under four years but definitely not as long as I originally thought.
Thank you for pointing out the electricity calculator. I have never thought to check for one of those online before.
I do still think the SunSun filters are a good choice, especially if startup costs are limiting but as you have shown, the long run cost effective option would be the FX6 and AC110. You just need the startup money to put into them.
This does bring me to the question of why the SunSun filters use so much power vs other filters with similar characteristics.
What happened with heating your 180?
Also, when comparing the wattage of a pump to a heater, it can be kind of hard. Obviously, the heater(s) can easily be anywhere from 300-1000 watts, depending on a number of factors. This makes a 35 watt filter seem like nothing. But, the filter runs constantly while the heater only runs every so often. Depending on the setup, your heaters can break your electric bill. If you have a very low ambient temp with a poorly insulated tank then you will have the heaters running a lot. With a large tank this can use a ton of electricity.
Also, when comparing the wattage of a pump to a heater, it can be kind of hard. Obviously, the heater(s) can easily be anywhere from 300-1000 watts, depending on a number of factors. This makes a 35 watt filter seem like nothing. But, the filter runs constantly while the heater only runs every so often. Depending on the setup, your heaters can break your electric bill. If you have a very low ambient temp with a poorly insulated tank then you will have the heaters running a lot. With a large tank this can use a ton of electricity.
