Out of these what would you go for?

[creepyoldguy]

I posted that assuming money is not an object. My last suggestion would be the cheapest for you, if you add the ac110.

 

[creepyoldguy]

I like Rena's XP1-XP3 (Not XP4s) given the right circumstances. But for all around filtration, they don't fit in the same category as FX5s.

So if you're picking between the two, I would say go for the FX5.

I agree, I don't think the xp4 is worth the extra money for 100gph more. This is only a 100g tank were talking about too.

 

[lilacamy931]

Ok guys, you have been fab, I have been concerntrating on value for money and branding and hadnt even thought about the over filtration side. I have a puffer in the 100g (as we all now messy eaters) and currently have the XP3 with an internal filter running. I havent had a good luck with externals (reckon do to not being able to afford a new one before this point). This filter I am wanting to run on its own (unless not a good idea) and this is where I get naive and unsure how much turnover is needed?

With the money aspect, would be happy to go up to £200 though dragging that price down massively would help (thanks for the mention of FX5 for £136) and someone else pointed to XP3/4 for £100. I think as I am paying the big bucks out this time (well for me!) that want to be sure to get the right thing for a long time

Again thanks all x

 

[Jonnyakawombell]

just upgraded from a fx5 to a 2080 three month ago, just to say come on guys you cart really compare these two filters in any way the 2080 is just way way way better in every way you can think of apart from price (which i personally would not skimp on bearing in mind you filter is the most important thing in you tank) but dont get me wrong hear dudes fx5's are still good filters in the short term but in the long term im not to sure as i had constant problems with mine by the end and i only had it 20 months,in comparison with my friend peter who has had a 2080 for 4 and a half years, its still running perfectly and he has only had to clean it 5-6 times since he bought it (like i said no comparison)

 

[DMasker]

FX5, I use one for my 180, I love it, it keeps the water crystal clear.

 

[aclockworkorange]

Never had a problem with my fx5. Have had problems with my eheim pro 3. Definitely have problems with one of my xp3s, the other one seems to work ok as long as it stays primed.

 

[Burto]

For power, efficiency and value for money, I'd go with an FX5. I've had mine for a couple weeks now and it's impressed the heck out of me.

just upgraded from a fx5 to a 2080 three month ago, just to say come on guys you cart really compare these two filters in any way the 2080 is just way way way better in every way you can think of apart from price (which i personally would not skimp on bearing in mind you filter is the most important thing in you tank) but dont get me wrong hear dudes fx5's are still good filters in the short term but in the long term im not to sure as i had constant problems with mine by the end and i only had it 20 months,in comparison with my friend peter who has had a 2080 for 4 and a half years, its still running perfectly and he has only had to clean it 5-6 times since he bought it (like i said no comparison)

Not meaning to be antagonistic, but can you explain the ways in which an Eheim 2080 is better than an FX5?
I have no experience with 2080s but from looking at specifications available online I can see that it is quite inferior to an FX5 in a couple ways - less flow (1700lph max vs. 3500lph max), and less energy efficient (30 watts for 1700lph vs. 48 watts for 3500lph - more than half the power for less than half the flow). Then there is the price difference.

 

[aclockworkorange]

For power, efficiency and value for money, I'd go with an FX5. I've had mine for a couple weeks now and it's impressed the heck out of me.


Not meaning to be antagonistic, but can you explain the ways in which an Eheim 2080 is better than an FX5?
I have no experience with 2080s but from looking at specifications available online I can see that it is quite inferior to an FX5 in a couple ways - less flow (1700lph max vs. 3500lph max), and less energy efficient (30 watts for 1700lph vs. 48 watts for 3500lph - more than half the power for less than half the flow). Then there is the price difference.

Just chiming in from my point of view, Eheims appear to be made with some better quality plastic than the FX5. But I'd still take an FX5 any day, mine has been nothing but good to me.

 

[taksan]

Not meaning to be antagonistic, but can you explain the ways in which an Eheim 2080 is better than an FX5?

1) Efficiency of flow ...a FX5 when full of media gets about 1991 lph (525gph) from its 3500 lph (925gph) pump a Eheim 2080 gets 1207 lph (318 gph) from its 1700lph (449gph) pump. The FX5 shoudl get more then double the Eheim but it doesn't because of its small diameter baskets restricting the flow.
2) Media capacity .. A FX5's baskets when filled to the recommended 3/4 inch below brim level hold only 5.2 liters of bio media. A Eheim 2080's baskets can hold 12 liters of biomedia.
3) Prefilter.... the FX5's circular pads are the only effective mechanical media possible and all water entering the cannister must go around these pads before going into the baskets. The 2080's prefilter design forces all water through a tray prefilter which catches most suspended solids prior to entering the actual prefilter pad allowing a less restricted flow.
4) Sheer performance ...The FX5 is unable to handle ammonia generated at anything more then 37ppm per 24 hours while the Eheim continues to process ammonia at up to 123ppm per 24 hours. It takes 3 FX5's to handle the biological capacity of 1 Eheim 2080 in a real world cycled tank situation with a pump thats rated at less then half the Fluvals flowrate.
5) Sheer quality ... The Eheim is built to a far higher standard of quality and fit and finish then the Fluval and has proven to be more reliable in operation.
6) Pump design .... The FX5's pump is at the bottom which especially when stopped for servicing can cause blockages of debris settled in the bottom of the filter. Many people have experienced their FX5's simply not starting up again after being unplugged. When cleaning the impeller they find sludge has settled around the impeller intake. This is due to the design of the FX5 the pump inlet needs a screen/protector to stop the impeller blockages.
7) Inefficient basket design .... The FX5's basket's are less then 50% of the circumfrance of the filter (smaller in fact then the relatively tiny Eheim Classic 2217) this causes issues with flow being restricted. Trying to pump over 500 gph through a area that size is going to cause flow restrictions to occur. A example of this is Fluvals Fine polishing pads for the FX5. When used users report them blocking within a week or two of normal use. Quite simply the surface area of the FX5's baskets are not large enough for the flow and the foam isn't making up for it. They are the real bottleneck to a FX5 being a great rather then good performer.

Thats about it ... but the thing that does it for me is the fact that it takes THREE FX5's to equal the biological performance of ONE 2080.

 

[Burto]

Thank you for the reply.

1) Efficiency of flow ...a FX5 when full of media gets about 1991 lph (525gph) from its 3500 lph (925gph) pump a Eheim 2080 gets 1207 lph (318 gph) from its 1700lph (449gph) pump. The FX5 shoudl get more then double the Eheim but it doesn't because of its small diameter baskets restricting the flow.

This made me very curious of the operating flow rate of mine, it seems to be moving more water than the 2000lph powerhead I had in the tank for a while. I just tested my FX5 by timing it to fill a 20 litre bucket, just on 30 seconds, 2400lph. It is loaded with the standard sponges in the outer compartments, one basket packed with small bioballs, one packed with a mix of ceramic rings and sintered glass nuggets, and one basket with the two coarse sponge pads from my old AquaOne CF 1200 canister squashed into it. The sponges will be replaced with sintered glass rings next time I have the FX5 open, I may test it again to see if this makes a difference to the flow.
So my FX5 is getting about 68.5% of its maximum flow, compared to 71% for the Eheim 2080 stats you posted. Pretty negligible.

I do agree that the baskets have a relatively small diameter, but I don't believe this is a significant flaw.

2) Media capacity .. A FX5's baskets when filled to the recommended 3/4 inch below brim level hold only 5.2 liters of bio media. A Eheim 2080's baskets can hold 12 liters of biomedia.

A. To my knowledge there is absolutely nothing stopping a person from filling the foam compartments in an FX5 with whatever media they want. The box states a total media volume of 20 litres. You could have 20 litres of any bio media you want in an FX5.
B. You only need as much biological filter media as you need, any excess is excess.

3) Prefilter.... the FX5's circular pads are the only effective mechanical media possible

What is to stop me from inserting a foam pad in any other basket? Or scouring pads or pot scrubbies in the outer compartments?

and all water entering the cannister must go around these pads before going into the baskets.

Isn't that a good thing? The water passes through the very high volume of coarse media and is mechanically filtered, before it gets to the bio media, preventing the bio media from being clogged?

The 2080's prefilter design forces all water through a tray prefilter which catches most suspended solids prior to entering the actual prefilter pad allowing a less restricted flow.

I'm not getting a very clear mental picture of how this is a good thing. What you are describing sounds like it would be prone to clogging, whereas I think you would have to work pretty hard to clog the large volume of coarse foam on an FX5.

4) Sheer performance ...The FX5 is unable to handle ammonia generated at anything more then 37ppm per 24 hours while the Eheim continues to process ammonia at up to 123ppm per 24 hours. It takes 3 FX5's to handle the biological capacity of 1 Eheim 2080 in a real world cycled tank situation with a pump thats rated at less then half the Fluvals flowrate.

This is also assuming only the centre media baskets in the FX5 are filled with bio media, yes? Do you have the study that made these findings you could link to? I'd like to see the methodology.
It sounds bizarre. What kind of real world cycled tank situation involves the production of 37 milligrams per litre of ammonia per 24 hours, let alone 123 milligrams per litre?

My well stocked well fed 180 litre/50 gallon tank produced about 10ppm nitrate in the space of 7 days. If ammonia > nitrite > nitrate is a 1 > 1 > 1 conversion rate (I have no idea if it is, if anyone has some information on this please chime in, if it turns out that it's something like a 20:1 conversion rate - 20ppm of ammonia is processed by beneficial bacteria into 1ppm of nitrate - I sincerely apologise for the following lengthy misinformed conjecture), my tank was producing about 1.4ppm ammonia per 24 hours.
If this is so, how ridiculously overstocked and overfed does an aquarium need to be in order to produce 37 milligrams per litre of ammonia per 24 hours, let alone 123 milligrams per litre per 24 hours?

My 180 litre/50 gallon tank held the equivalent of about 6 5" fish. By my estimates, at the same level of feeding per fish, I'd need to stock 50 gallons with 158 5" fish to produce 37ppm ammonia in 24 hours, 527 5" fish to produce 123ppm in 24 hours.

Even if this is true, which I am not at present convinced that it is, I do not think it is a relevant point of contention since it is not something that is going to come into effect in a responsibly maintained aquarium. It's like living in the city and me claiming my 4WD/SUV is better than your van, because my 4WD/SUV can go off road. We're not going off road, we're living in the city, off road capability is irrelevant.

Furthermore, if my 32 litre desktop tank had say 40ppm ammonia in it, that would be a total of 1280 milligrams in the whole system. If I were to add 1280 milligrams of ammonia to my 32 litre tank, take my FX5 off my 600 litre aquarium, stick the siphon and return into the 32 litre tank, switch on and turn it into a whirlpool, do you think that the FX5 would choke on 1280 milligrams of ammonia? I sort of find that hard to believe.

5) Sheer quality ... The Eheim is built to a far higher standard of quality and fit and finish then the Fluval and has proven to be more reliable in operation.

I don't think it's at all unlikely that a less powerful filter that costs twice as much has a nicer fit and finish, is made to finer tolerances, uses better materials, etc., but I would like this sort of statement accompanied by some qualifying examples. I didn't have a single thing to complain about with my FX5 in terms of build quality, so if something is better, I would like to know in what way.

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.

6) Pump design .... The FX5's pump is at the bottom which especially when stopped for servicing can cause blockages of debris settled in the bottom of the filter. Many people have experienced their FX5's simply not starting up again after being unplugged. When cleaning the impeller they find sludge has settled around the impeller intake. This is due to the design of the FX5 the pump inlet needs a screen/protector to stop the impeller blockages.

If you allow your filter to get that dirty, I don't think it's fair to attribute that sort of failure to it, rather than the user.

7) Inefficient basket design .... The FX5's basket's are less then 50% of the circumfrance of the filter (smaller in fact then the relatively tiny Eheim Classic 2217) this causes issues with flow being restricted. Trying to pump over 500 gph through a area that size is going to cause flow restrictions to occur.

As I said, I don't believe this is a significant flaw. There is nothing wrong with my flow.

A example of this is Fluvals Fine polishing pads for the FX5. When used users report them blocking within a week or two of normal use.

A. If you choke your filter with fine media, what would you expect?
B. If it's clogging within a couple weeks it's doing its job pretty well.

Quite simply the surface area of the FX5's baskets are not large enough for the flow and the foam isn't making up for it. They are the real bottleneck to a FX5 being a great rather then good performer..

I don't see these criticism being born out in practice, certainly not in my personal experience. My flow isn't being choked and the foam can be replaced with whatever you want.

Thats about it ... but the thing that does it for me is the fact that it takes THREE FX5's to equal the biological performance of ONE 2080.

Even if true, I think this is the most irrelevant point of all - I think it is only relevant if you are using your canister filter for sewerage treatment, not the responsible maintenance of an aquarium. If your filtration is moving water and maintaining ammonia and nitrite at 0ppm, it's doing its job.