REVIEW:Fluval FX5 vs Eheim Pro3 compared
- Thread starter taksan
- Start date
It was 27w vs 51w. And in the long run it would make a difference. Remember they're running 24/7 everyday. After a few years the difference would start to add up. Let's say the difference in running the two cost about $10 a month and in a year that's $120.danny;847723; said:
The eheim costs more at start up, but is far less long term. Personally I could get the fx5 for $130, and the pro 3 is $319 filled. After media the pro 3 is only ~$120 over the fx5 which isn't enough for another fx5. It is a toss up, and will be split. They are both good filters, but my preference is the pro 3 over the fx5 and just running an sponge or AC110 (better mech filtration for the money, and easier to clean).
Im glad this argument and test is still in circulationtaksan;845307; said:
- even after all this time 
What this test implies especially regarding the 2 day improvement in the Bio filtration test - is we would hope to expect from Eheim a measurable gain over the FX5 in this area - just by the amount of media its designed to hold in that area (eheim). But whats even more important based on the suggested MFG. tank size for both filters, is that the FX5 has more than adequate media capacity for its rated size, regardless if there is a 2 day difference. All it proves is that it takes two days longer to remove the nitrates - but it still is removed. All this shows is how fast a unstable or non-established tank can be stabilized. I think its important to mention that once stabilized what advantage is there still? All it shows is one is faster in one area - but they both can do the same task for their rated size aquiariums.
Duc
is300zx;847738; said:
I did calculations a few weeks ago to argue on the side of the eheim but when I did the calculations it ended up coming out to like 11$ to run one and 20$ to run the other(for the year). The website that I got the typical $ per kilowatt hour to do my calculations could have been ten years old for all I know so my info could be dated but when doing my calculations the money spent on operating either of these for a year was so minor it wouldn't come into play at all in my decision to buy one or the other.
Ducati996;863574; said:Im glad this argument and test is still in circulation
What this test implies especially regarding the 2 day improvement in the Bio filtration test - is we would hope to expect from Eheim a measurable gain over the FX5 in this area - just by the amount of media its designed to hold in that area (eheim). But whats even more important based on the suggested MFG. tank size for both filters, is that the FX5 has more than adequate media capacity for its rated size, regardless if there is a 2 day difference. All it proves is that it takes two days longer to remove the nitrates - but it still is removed. All this shows is how fast a unstable or non-established tank can be stabilized. I think its important to mention that once stabilized what advantage is there still? All it shows is one is faster in one area - but they both can do the same task for their rated size aquiariums.
Duc
Errrr no actualy ..... Once both filters are cycled the Eheim can support bacteria that will handle approximately 3 times the bio load of the FX5 without showing ammonia.
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. 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.
The Ehiem is rated for a 1200 litre tank ...the Fluval for a 1500 litre tank.
I know all this because I wrote the review and did the testing.
If you really want to see a Eheim trash a FX5 wait until you see it compared apples to apples with the Eheim 2262 thats also rated at 3400 l/ph.... we are talking efficiency differences in the region of 700% in favour of the Eheim.
