to canister or not to canister?
- Thread starter movitt
- Start date
Anyone that has done the research, and has run fluvals, renas, cascades, ocean clears, eheims, magnums, marinelands, catalina aquariums, and many of the other off brands would know that the eheims perform better. Also anyone keeping track would see that an Eheim 2217 can be had for $120, but a fluval 404 or a rena XP3 will run far above that in cost... your logic, and your research has no merit.dodge4x4man68;1755612;1755612 said:
WyldFya;1758245; said:
I disagree emphatically with the blanket statement that "Eheims perform better". The performance of an aquarium filter (automobile, toaster, etc.) is always contingent upon the specific conditions and demands of the user. This is precisely why there exists such a wide diversity of opinion on this subject. Furthermore, I have had two XP3s running continuously for three years and they have performed flawlessly. Therefore, under my specific conditions, it would not be possible for an "Eheim to perform better". As far as "doing research", I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting we do, but I can tell you that from a purely theoretical perspective, based solely on design elements, the XP3 is superior to the 2217 (IMO). Others, of course, will have a different opinion, based upon their interpretations and personal experience.
The research being looking into how a canister physically works. I have run every canister listed above, and can say that eheims perform better, as they always have performed better than any other canister. Basic look at a rena filstar, and you will see there is room for bypass, which will, and does happen. Look at the design on a classic eheim, there is no way for bypass of the media at all. Right there that will put the eheim above the filstar.brianp;1758716;1758716 said:
brianp;1758716; said:
I have agree with this, I have had the 2217 and I couldnt have been happier when I through it out... it is a pain to clean with no baskets or trying to keep the media separate is a pain, and it has a hard time stopping gunk.
Which is why I love my FX5 it is the best of both worlds, stops ALL the gunk and never have a problem with ammo or rites in my over stocked tank.
Eheims are good but IMO they are not worth the money, you are paying for a underpowered name.
At a much more affordable price you can get a Rena, Fluval, Cascade, etc. and not go broke buying a filter.
Eheim 2217s are much cheaper than the competing fluvals. As far as underpowered, canisters as a whole are designed to be biological filters primarily. With biological media, the longer the dwell time, the more efficiently the bacteria can filter out the toxins. Higher flow rates are for mechanical filtration.
BushFishRox;1761462; said:
That is exactly why I went for the Rena xP3 instead, also because the Rena is easy to prime and has the power jet nozzle. However, given the price that the Rena is at now, I would go for the Eheim 2217. The Eheim 2217 comes with all of the needed media but the Rena xP3 comes with about half,you would still need to spend around $20 to fill it. It would come down to $120 for the Eheim 2217 and $190 for the Rena xP3 including media. It was a different story when the Rena was selling for $90...
WyldFya;1761484; said:
???
bigalsonline.ca/ has the 2217 for 199.99 w/ media and the Rena XP4 for 199.99 w/ media personally I would pick the XP4 over the 2217.
P.S. why is Big Al's US so much cheaper then the CAD store? our dollar is pretty much equal now...
