Still Don't Understand FX5 Mania?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Pharaoh said:
You started a thread with a title that bashed a highly regarded filter system and you didn't expect people to respond to that? Bottom line is people are going to like what they like, for the reasons that they decide are justifiable and they will stick with it. In my opinion, the FX5 is a pretty good overall value, plain and simple. Poking at people for what they believe always incites a negative response. If you want to start a disussion, you have to begin with a clear and define topic to discuss and support that topic with facts, not a negative comment with no factual basis behind it.

Why do you have such an issue with the fact that I am a mod? Can I not participate and contribute to a discussion? I was merely trying to understand your point in this thread. What I am to gather is that you are simply questioning whether or not you have set it up correctly becaus you are not seeing the results that others are seeing, correct?

You are correct, that excess water flow could potentially impact the biofiltration of a filter system, but not to the point of making it ineffective. I go back to my prevous statement of how many people overdo the amount of bio filtration that they really need. This is most likely because there is no hard set number on deciding whether it is adequate or not.

In reference to the setup of the FX5, I have it setup just as the manual states, 6 foam pads and ceramic media/scrubbies, minus the polishing cloth. I ran two on my 265, with the outputs towards the center and the inputs towards the ends of the tank. No, the tank doesn't stay crystal clear, but it does stay pretty darn clean. Nothing a little tank maintenance can't take care of. For maintentance, I cleaned out one filter completely every six months or so.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but I disagree, the title was ment as a true statement on my part that I did not understand why it's so popular I then very planly went on to point out what I thought was it's faults. I then went on to ask folks to give me back some input admitting that I was opening myself up. So I went on to ask please for responces without tearing me up to bad. I think this is simple and very plain. If I knew the answers would I ask the question? The comments I made to start this thread are factual to me and in return maybe some others? I'm not saying it has to be the case for everyone.

Your second paragraph. I have no issue with you being a mod. As a matter of fact I'm glad you have made your opinions. So my second point is that if the weaknesses are not true than make the case to change my mind. I am new to this filter so I'm trying to find out if I'm doing something different than other folks? I clairified this one point as the thread is very long so I fealt it would put it back on focus.

For my point on waterflow I used a very popular thread which I fealt was very good where the reviewer used about as good control as possible on his test, and backed it up with numbers from this very forum. I do believe it's conclusion was the 2080 out performed the FX5 and remember the point I made earlier I was not using the price.
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/f...-Eheim-Pro3-compared&highlight=Eheim+pro3+fx5

I then went on to explain about the articles from another forum which are much more scientific but are not from this forum so I steered clear of using a link for which I have no permission. Then I did make the point for him to step forword in case he is a member here also?

And I do believe it was you earlier that made the statement that per the box it can handle 400gallons. Then you went on say you had TWO on a 265 and the tank still is not completely clear, so would you want to run one on a 400?

So I ask you again to read my origanial question again, then go down threw this thread you will see that I have tryed very hard to keep it civil. I have no control if someone takes the thread in another direction other than try to get it back on track. And I'm sorry if someone is rude than I am going to reply which I'd like to point out that I believe I tried to do without disrespect as best I could. I have read many post on here that where by far worse with rude/snide comments than this one.

I not sure this whole reply belongs in the thread as it is off subject. I don't like to use this but I am going to in this case I am disabled and have a few physical limitations I do on occation have a hard time with complete thoughts? You know I feel very strongly on this....I may make a some points that you or anyone may not agree with....But if you don't like the statement reply in a civil manner theres no need to be rude unless the person is rude to you. At least thats how I was taught and it is common manners for anyone in public. I am glad this post has prompted replies is that not the reason to start a thread?
 
The issue with canisters is that, unless they're cleaned frequently, then they're just taking the poop, uneaten food and other stuff from your tank...and hiding it in the filter. A "clean tank" attached to a cylinder filled with rotting stuff might look clean, but it's not.

Higher flow rates in canister filters make them effective at mechanical filtration but just exacerbate the issue by sucking more stuff into the filter. More stuff rotting in the filter = the same stuff rotting in your tank = ammonia that needs to be converted to nitrate.

Given the choice, I'd use (easily cleaned) HOB or air driven boxes for mechanical and lower flow canisters (with pre-filters) for biological filtration.

Matt

Pharaoh said:
I do in fact disagree with the assertion that canisters are for people that have lots of money and want to show off. You couldn't be more off base with a good portion of the fishkeeping community. Canister are fopr people that need to reduce the amount of O2/Co2 exchange for planted tanks, reduce humidity in their fish rooms, and/or just want something that doesn't have the potential to leak on their current setup.

There are way too many assumptions and singular opinions going on. Look at the whole deal. Look at price in relation to filter function and options. Output flow, ease of maintenance, filtering capacity and bio load capacity. I actually prefer Rena filters over any other filter, but the FX5 still beats it hands down. It's not a matter of opinon, it is fact. I would have to have six Rena filters on my 265 to get as much flow and keep the tank as clean as two FX5s do. I love Rena filters, but for $150-$170, my money is better served buying something more effective.

I won't say that the FX5 is the best filter as I have no experience with Marineland, but I do know that I'd rather buy a FX5 than spend the exptra moeny on an Eheim. Just doesn't seem worth it to me.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry, I've been thinking again!!! You know with this thread what would it matter if its the FX5...I mean it could have been Rena, Eheim, Marineland,Cascade. etc. Allot of the points here can be applied to many filters. Mine is the FX5 as it is my primary filter and don't run it by itself on a 125.
 
So where the sump is open you need to be very aware shall we say to maintainence maybe even more so than canisters?
 
In the case of my sumps/dumps, cleaning involves taking the cover off (of the rubbermaid bins that house them), removing the tray of fluff that serves as mechanical filtration, dumping it into a bucket, adding a new piece of fluff, putting the tray back in place, and putting the lid back on... If I'm also doing water changes, I might siphon out any stray gunk from the dump / sump itself while the top is off.

Maybe 90 seconds total. So I do it at least weekly,

How long does it take to clean a canister? FX5, Eheim or otherwise...

Matt

hawkerw said:
So where the sump is open you need to be very aware shall we say to maintainence maybe even more so than canisters?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom