Now I'm confused.

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
packer43064

packer43064

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Jul 10, 2008
3,308
3
38
36
Ohio
:confused: So after looking at this thread http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68458&page=5. It seems everyone is with the Eheim filter. I thought everyone on here was basically for the Fluval FX5. After reading that thread It looks like the Fluval has a lot more filter floss(mechanical filtration) than the Eheim. Isn't this better to have than bio media filtration. I mean hell people don't even use carbon half of the time, so wouldn't the Fluval be a better buy.

I hear they cost around 200 bucks(FX5) and the media and what not are even cheaper than the Eheims too. In my opinion I would rather have more mechanical to pick stuff up. I'm hoping to get a 125 soon and will want a nice big canister filter. If I need carbon I could just put a AC 110(fill it with carbon with a little bit of filter floss) on it and who cares if it takes all day for it filter through it all. Also I'm not rich or even near rich by any means. I have bills and what not to pay not to mind a GF also.:) So the Fluval just seems like a steal for 200 bucks with all of that mechanical filtration.

What you all think?
 
I think one thing to keep in mind is that all of the sponge filtration is great but where the beneficial bacterial mainly live is the biological media, so you can remove all the solid wastes from the aquariums water, but it sits in your filter still releasing amonnia, which still must be converted to nitrite then nitrate by the bb in the biological media, comparatively the fx5 may have less room for biological media but it is still quite a bit of room and with its flow rate it probably makes up for it and it is still a great filter, although I have never owned an eheim I believe that the slower flow rate pushed through a lot of biological media converts quite a bit of ammonia to nitrite to nitrate, just a different approach I guess. Not to say Eheim does not have cannisters with high flow rates just the fx5 is cheaper.
 
Thanks all. I'm getting the FX5, well saving up for it really. I already knew that, It would take forever to save up 400 plus bucks. I would of course put carbon in the FX5 just wondered what you all thought. It makes sense bout the whole nitrite to nitrate and what not. FX5 has more sponge filtration which with Oscars and such would do great.Thanks though, just didn't see why soo many was for the Eheim when it had barely any sponge filtration.
 
Ha ha ya oscars can be pretty messy, a lot of people will normally only use carbon to remove medecine after treatment, some people cycle it through, having periods with carbon and periods without it. One thing that could happen if left in too long is that after it has absorbed as much as it can it can begin to leach back some of the potentially harmful chemicals etc. that it has absored, I think it can also absorb some of the necessary trace elements in the water. I personally onle use it to remove medecines.
 
Your talking about the carbon right cichliddan? Yeah I rarely use it too. I use it with the HOB filters just because it comes with it. I usually take it out after a few weeks to a month, wouldn't want it to be over used and not work as well and leak crap back in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom