Thinking about switching to ehiems

[Burto]

Sponges aren't filter media any more?
An FX5 has a media volume of about 20 litres, 5.9 of which is available for whatever media you want to put in it.
If 20 litres of media isn't enough for your tank then how big is your tank, or what the heck are you keeping in it?

How much 'bio-media' does a tank or filter or stocking level or feeding regime need? Until these questions can be definitively answered talk of X# media is Y better than Z# media is unfounded nonsense.

It is entirely possible to have a healthy thriving aquarium with very little or even no 'bio-media' in your filtration system. If your water parameters are in check and stable, you have enough filtration. No amount of media is going to reduce your ammonia and nitrite levels below 0.

Given how little 'bio-media' you need, it is my contention that an aquarium will run into water movement/turnover issues long before it runs into filter media issues.
I have 4x per hour turnover rate just from an FX5 and my system is healthy and stable. (So stable I accidentally left the filter turned off for 12+ hours a couple weeks ago without any issues.)

Eheim 2262 80 watts for 3400lph actual flow ~1300lph*
Eheim 2080 30 watts for 1700lph actual flow ~1200lph
Fluval FX5 48 watts** for 3500lph actual flow 2200lph+
*According to Harley K's tests, who owns two 2262s.
**Running on macho 220-240 volt power.

I like water circulation and efficiency, and I know that massive quantities of media are totally unnecessary. Personally I wouldn't pay more for less filter.

 

[jgjoneslaw]

You can easily mod the FX5 to hold about 14 liters of media... For half the price of a 2080 and with twice the flow rate.

http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/diy-aquarium/fluval-fx5-modification-13116/

2262 is a beast but costs considerably more.

If you read through that thread it acknowledges the inherent issues of the FX5... lack of media space and lack of water contact time with the media for decreased biological filtration. Also, I wouldn't say it is easily modded when again if you read through the thread, there are issues with air purging that isn't solved until the guy heat molds plexi glass onto the pvc piping etc etc... I wouldn't call that easy. I don't know where a 2080 costs double an FX5. In my foster and smith catalog the 2080 is 430 and the fx5 is on sale for 305 normally 390. Big Als has the 2262 for 470... none of those are close to double. We may just have to agree to disagree.... I value media capacity for redundancy reasons and for the efficiency of biological filtration... if flow/turnover is ever a problem I'd just get a powerhead but to each his own.... I think the OP has plenty of material to work with.

 

[jgjoneslaw]

Sponges aren't filter media any more?
An FX5 has a media volume of about 20 litres, 5.9 of which is available for whatever media you want to put in it.
If 20 litres of media isn't enough for your tank then how big is your tank, or what the heck are you keeping in it?

How much 'bio-media' does a tank or filter or stocking level or feeding regime need? Until these questions can be definitively answered talk of X# media is Y better than Z# media is unfounded nonsense.

When a filter has acknowledged issues with the slowness of cycling I don't think that's unfounded nonsense at all. It's certainly no more unfounded than your unsupported assertion that turnover flow rate is somehow the most important aspect of filtration. All the GPH in the world won't matter when you unexpectedly get an ammonia/nitrite spike because your bio media isn't cutting it while as long as your turnover is keeping the tank oxygenated the rest is just for aesthetics. Given how overstocked most people are that added capacity may well safe the fish's life. And again, get a powehead or cheap pump to simply move water if that's what you are after.

 

[Burto]

If you read through that thread it acknowledges the inherent issues of the FX5... lack of media space and lack of water contact time with the media for decreased biological filtration.

It doesn't so much 'acknowledge' it, as make an issue out of it where none exists. What is it that an FX5's 20 litres of media are incapable of doing?
What is it that the water velocity through an FX5 prevents the media from doing? It certainly doesn't prevent nitrification of ammonia and nitrite. My understanding is that the waste water treatment industry performs nitrification at velocities far greater than anything found in a canister filter. In regards to canister filters, 'contact time' is a made up issue with little if any relevance to nitrifying ability.

I don't know where a 2080 costs double an FX5. In my foster and smith catalog the 2080 is 430 and the fx5 is on sale for 305 normally 390. Big Als has the 2262 for 470... none of those are close to double.

My understanding is that in North America, FX5s are routinely available for around $220 or less on eBay.

I value media capacity for redundancy reasons and for the efficiency of biological filtration...

What can, for example, 100 litres of ceramic rings (or your media of choice) do for a 200 litre aquarium that produces 200 milligrams of ammonia every 24 hours, that 1 litre of the same media can't?

When a filter has acknowledged issues with the slowness of cycling

The test in the article had no controls, the full parameters of the test were not even stated, no conclusions can be drawn from it other than in the particular circumstances the tests were run under the testers claim the Eheim to have cycled the tank slightly faster. Even if after a controlled study the particular findings of the test are validated, it still amounts to a non-issue. FX5s do not have cycling issues. Two days is a negligible difference and irrelevant to the ongoing maintenance of an aquarium.

It's certainly no more unfounded than your unsupported assertion that turnover flow rate is somehow the most important aspect of filtration.

Sorry, I didn't say that. I didn't make any statement on what is the most important aspect of aquarium filtration. I will do so now that you may address what I have said rather than what I haven't.

The most important aspect of aquarium filtration is nitrification of ammonia and nitrite. This is achieved by moving water over surfaces colonized with aerobic nitrifying bacteria. How much surface area you need and how much water movement you need are two things I've never seen anyone quantify. Presumably more of one can make up for less of the other to some degree.
My contention is that with a given commercial filter unit, if you increase the volume of water and bioload to be filtered, you will encounter issues with water movement (dead spots, and water that's being polluted faster than it can be cycled through the filter) before you encounter issues of surface area. Filters generally contain a lot more media than is necessary.
Taksan, the poster of the FX5 v. Pro 3 thread who claimed to have been present for the tests, stated to me that an FX5 is 'only' capable of handling the production of ~37ppm ammonia per 24 hours. That's an absurdly high bioload. My stock produce not more than a quarter of that per week (168 hours). If what he said is true, an FX5 holds far, far more media than any sensibly stocked aquarium will ever need.

All the GPH in the world won't matter when you unexpectedly get an ammonia/nitrite spike because your bio media isn't cutting it while as long as your turnover is keeping the tank oxygenated the rest is just for aesthetics. Given how overstocked most people are that added capacity may well safe the fish's life.

Are you aware that nitrifying bacteria colonies that process ammonia and nitrite only grow to the size of the bioload they are consuming? I.e. with the same stocking level you could have 2 litres of media or 200 litres of media and your bacteria colonies will be the same size, because there is only so much food available to support the given size.
If you have enough media to support a bacteria colony big enough to accommodate increases or swings in bioload, then you have enough media, whether that be 5 litres of 500 litres. More than enough isn't going to do anything extra for you.

And again, get a powehead or cheap pump to simply move water if that's what you are after.

Additional pumps are only going to solve half (probably the least important half) the problem of insufficient filter turnover. They may eliminate dead spots and push the water around, but they're not actually filtering. They're just shoving dirty water around while it waits to actually get filtered.

 

[pURPLEcHILLIrED123]

The reason I am thinking about replacing my FX5 is because the Eheims hold a lot more media. I currently have 180 stocked with 20” aro, 3 9-11” rays, 1 10” dat, and 1 9” FRT. When I first setup this tank about 6 months ago, the ammonia ALWAYS had a reading of around 1.5-2.0 everyday for the past 3-4 months, even only feeding my fishes every other day. I change about 35 gallons every 2-4 days depending on how I feel. The PH was a low of 4.7(electronically tested) but would be around 6.0 after the water change, but would fall back to under 5.0 the next day. I then decided to remove 2 trays out of 1 of my FX5 so I could place more bio-rings in there and bag full of crushed coral. I did this about 5 weeks ago and now every time I test my water the next day after large a feeding - There is NO ammonia, the nitrite unreadable and the PH is about 7.0-7.3. This main reason I was looking to switch out my FX5’s. This and saving about 40Watts per hour is the reason I am thinking about changing out my FX5’s.

I did this only to one of my FX5’s and my readings have never been better. I am thinking about doing this to my other FX5 but I do not feel the need to yet.

 

[aclockworkorange]

OP, your money would be much better invested in a bigger tank, not more/bigger/different filters. A 180 is not a big enough footprint for those fish to thrive long term IMO. Why don't you pick up something like a 300 gallon wide?

 

[pURPLEcHILLIrED123]

OP, your money would be much better invested in a bigger tank, not more/bigger/different filters. A 180 is not a big enough footprint for those fish to thrive long term IMO. Why don't you pick up something like a 300 gallon wide?

I would love to get 500-600 gallon tank… but my house is small and the garage is full. If I have room I would love to upgrade my tank. I already know my tank is too small but as long as my water parameters are good… the 180 is going to have to do for now.

So out of the eheims… models 2080 and 2262 are the best large filters eheims has… Thanks for the info.

 

[HarleyK]

So out of the eheims… models 2080 and 2262 are the best large filters eheims has… Thanks for the info.

Scratch the 2080. It's POS. Take it from an Eheim guy...

HarleyK

 

[rhodes_96]

Agree HarleyK it's the most expensive POS with an eheim badge on it.

That article wrote is a true work of fiction !!!


Before the fx5's i went through 4 x 2080 all faulty in less than 2 weeks.
The third 2080 was installed and setup by the eheim rep in shop, and had a stuck safety lever on shutoff adapter. When he tried to free it it snapped. Then the replacement filter for that would not prime.

Eheim classic series in the 2260/62 models are good filters.

Value for money vs performance, fx5 is a better option.


If your worried about the media capacity fill all trays in both filters with good bio media like sechem matrix, and that should take care of your bio filtration with overhead. Remember efficient media requires pre filtering to prevent clogging, so a blue pad or equivalent will be required in the top basket of each filter. If you need buffering from crushed coral fill one tray in one filter with it and test to see if it buffers enough. The crushed coral is very efficient in housing bb, but crushed coral does break down over time.