Out of these what would you go for?

[taksan]

The foam supplied with the FX5 is poor-I replaced it with 30 ppi foam which overlaps the basket edge and therefore reduces the likelihood of flow bypass.

Where did you get it ? I've been looking for 30ppi foam to do exactly what you have done but all I can find is the lumpy ones at the koi section of garden centres.

 

[Burto]

I've seen them personally and was actually present during the start of the tests.

What did you see personally, the documentation of the tests? I already know you've seen both filters personally. Was there any actual documentation of these tests?

It beats the FX5 with regards bio filtration hands-down as it holds a lot of media.

Again, not meaning to be antagonistic, but I don't understand how people can make this claim. Has your cycled FX5 failed to maintain ammonia and nitrite at 0ppm? People seem to be claiming that more bio media = better bio filter. Maybe it has the potential to be a better bio filter in sewerage treatment, but for aquarium maintenance I don't think it's a point of contention. Even if your tank is a cesspit, if the filter doesn't have sufficient flow to eliminate dead spots media capacity becomes irrelevant.
I'm all in favour of having a very comfortable excess of filter media, but we shouldn't pretend that litres upon litres of excess filter media are necessary or having any additional benefit, any more so than a huge turnover rate on an aquarium that could be maintained at 0ppm ammonia and nitrite with a 4x turnover rate is doing anything other than providing additional water movement.

 

[Morledzep]

i'll add my 2 cents.. just cause i can.

i've been using FX5's for several years. the first one i ever plugged in is still running 4 years later, i think i've changed the filter foam 3 times in the last 2 years. they have amazing capacity. and they are by far the most dependable canister filters i've ever used.

but.. ALL of my experience with filters falls into two categories.. Marineland brands (most HOB) and Fluval canisters. i've never owned an eheim anything, and i probably never will. i'm all for cheap and dependable and the FX5 fills that bill very well.

 

[impala]

Eheim 2260. Classic. I wouldn't mess with the newest high-tech.

I agree, Eheim 2260 has quietly been taking care of bussiness on my 175g for 12 years, no problems, not one, still all original.
The same can be said for my other Eheims;
2028 proII 9yrs. (ops, forgot, had to replace a broken ceramic impellar axle)
2250 10 yrs.
2262 only 2 yrs., but what a filter
AS for fx5, do a "problems" search, enough said.

 

[robroy]

Where did you get it ? I've been looking for 30ppi foam to do exactly what you have done but all I can find is the lumpy ones at the koi section of garden centres.

From here mate-really good service and delivered in no time at all. I as a bit concerned about ordering from abroad-worried they might rip me off!- but this German company is great.Hope the link works

http://www.aquaristikshop.com/cdshop/e_cd/Filterplatten.htm

 

[Burto]

AS for fx5, do a "problems" search, enough said.

Regarding reliability, I don't think anything short of a controlled long term trial is going to prove anything conclusively. As I've said before, If there are more people complaining about problems with FX5s it's hardly surprising given how common they are. It seems every second MFKer owns or has owned an FX5, whereas I really don't think anywhere near the same number of people own a large Eheim at twice the price. Hypothetically speaking, if there are 2 comparable products of equal reliability, but one has 10 times as many units in circulation as the other, you're going to get 10 times as many reports of issues in spite of the comparable reliability.

.

 

[taksan]

What did you see personally, the documentation of the tests? I already know you've seen both filters personally. Was there any actual documentation of these tests?

As I've said I was personally there during the actual test's and peronally noted all the results and documentation.

Again, not meaning to be antagonistic, but I don't understand how people can make this claim. Has your cycled FX5 failed to maintain ammonia and nitrite at 0ppm? People seem to be claiming that more bio media = better bio filter. Maybe it has the potential to be a better bio filter in sewerage treatment, but for aquarium maintenance I don't think it's a point of contention. Even if your tank is a cesspit, if the filter doesn't have sufficient flow to eliminate dead spots media capacity becomes irrelevant.
I'm all in favour of having a very comfortable excess of filter media, but we shouldn't pretend that litres upon litres of excess filter media are necessary or having any additional benefit, any more so than a huge turnover rate on an aquarium that could be maintained at 0ppm ammonia and nitrite with a 4x turnover rate is doing anything other than providing additional water movement.

Put it this way .... Many people here have single fish that would eat the equivalent of your entire fish stock in your tank every week. A single average 24" RTC would have little trouble in producing 75 ppm of ammonia in a week in 1000 liters by itself even if fed sparingly. If you have monster fish you need monster bio.

 

[Burto]

As I've said I was personally there during the actual test's and peronally noted all the results and documentation.

Before, you claimed to have been present at the start of the tests, now you were present during the tests? All 13+ days of them? Does this documentation you claim to have seen actually exist to be shared with the rest of the world? I've asked to see it about half a dozen times now but you've declined, and haven't stated whether it even exists to be shared.

Put it this way .... Many people here have single fish that would eat the equivalent of your entire fish stock in your tank every week. A single average 24" RTC would have little trouble in producing 75 ppm of ammonia in a week in 1000 liters by itself even if fed sparingly. If you have monster fish you need monster bio.

From your own private source of data, you stated that an FX5 couldn't handle more than 37ppm ammonia in 24 hours. So it *can* handle up to 36ppm? Shouldn't have any trouble with 10.714ppm ammonia per 24 hours, should it?
In other words, even a filter with a quarter the claimed bio capacity of an FX5 could handle 75ppm ammonia produced over 7 days.
If I were trying to filter 10.714ppm ammonia per 24 hours out of a 1000 litre aquarium, and I have a choice between a filter with a great big empty space to fill with an enormous excess of media I don't need, or a filter that actually pumps more water and is actually capable of turning the tank over twice an hour, and still has (according to your own private data) over 4x the bio filtering capacity necessary, I know which I'd choose. Not to mention I could get 2 for the same price.

I've seen your (Lady's) magnificent altum tank with the 2080 and pair of 2180s, but I would estimate that somewhere in the vicinity of just 1/50 of the total bio media in them is actually being used.

 

[taksan]

Actually that tank is maxed... there are over 50 catfish in there as well.