XP3 - Not to Impressed.

[12 Volt Man]

After having two XP3s I do think that the "This filter is sized for aquariums up to 175 US Gallons" Is vastly over rated by Rena. Water flow with media and accessories as stated on the box(in front of me) is 187GPH. That's a 1.06 turn over rate per hour.

agreed. but realize that ALL the manufacturers do this.

eg. Hagen's Aquaclear - would anyone put an AC70 by itself on anything bigger than a 50? I use them on 30's.. or an AC110 on anything more than 65 by itself? probably not.

you can't fault Rena for overrating their filters.

because every other manufacturer does this.

if anything Rena should be commended for publishing their flow rates WITH MEDIA which no one else seems to do...

that does create problems for them, like I said earlier, because people take their flow rate with media, and mistakenly compare it to another canister's rating without...

you have to make sure you are comparing the same numbers..

 

[Bderick67]

After having two XP3s I do think that the "This filter is sized for aquariums up to 175 US Gallons" Is vastly over rated by Rena. Water flow with media and accessories as stated on the box(in front of me) is 187GPH. That's a 1.06 turn over rate per hour.

Are you comfortable with that?

I would have a hard time running a single XP3 alone on any thing bigger then a 90gal.

Same can be said for the FX5 being rated for "aquariums as large as 400 US
gallons". With the FX5 flow rate being 607GPH with media that would leave you with a 1.5175 turnover rate per hour. I think many would still say that is too little.

Even in our own filtration 101 sticky the general rule of thumb that is mentioned is 4-6 times per hour turn over for a canister filter. So by going by that rule of 4 times minimum turn over. To get the "hobbyists" tank rating for these filters take the GPH rating with media and divide by the minimum accepted turnover rate, in this case 4 gets you the tank size the hobbyists feel they should be rated for.

For the Rena XP3(187gph)
187 / 4 = 46.75gallon tank.

Now to apply the same to the FX5.
607 / 4 = 151.75 gallon tank

Kind of puts it into perspective on how much these two filters are in separate classes.

Also makes me feel like our 90gal is under filtered.

Personally I believe, the stated turnover rates in that sticky are a crock. This is from my own personal experience. I've been running a 150g tank with two XP3s for close to 3 years. First a 96x18x21" and for the last 6 months it has been a 72x18x28". My tanks are always on the heavy side in terms of stocking. I do regular testing and at least weekly 50% W/Cs.

So with the actual flow rate of about 190 gallons times two and lets say a water volume of 140 gallons. So the turnover on the 150g is only 2.7 times pretty pathetic, right? Yet never have I had any amount of either ammonia or nitrite show up. So obviously the stated 4 to 6 times turnover is far from being needed. Then again a lot of people don't set up there media correctly either so in that case better go with the 4 to 6 time turnover.

 

[12 Volt Man]

I agree. turnover is, like 'cross sectional surface area' lol only one small peice of the puzzle.

there are a lot of parameters (eg flow rate, media capacity, internal surface area, tank biomass, frequency of water changes etc) that need to be taken into account with filtration.

it can't be reduced to a simple number.

 

[Bderick67]

I agree. turnover is, like 'cross sectional surface area' lol only one small peice of the puzzle.

there are a lot of parameters (eg flow rate, media capacity, internal surface area, tank biomass, frequency of water changes etc) that need to be taken into account with filtration.

it can't be reduced to a simple number.

maybe the small cross sectional area is actually a bonus. Because of the narrow waterway the water actually hits more biomedia on each pass going through the XP filters

 

[uncwnells]

hahaha, I have an xp3, fx5, 405, and a cascade cannister, the xp3 is at the bottom in terms of bang for your buck.

 

[sutherland]

I don't doubt the quoted flow through rates for any HOB filter, but then again...how much media is it actually flowing through..inches at best. Flow through rates as a whole are overrated.

 

[cassharper]

maybe the small cross sectional area is actually a bonus. Because of the narrow waterway the water actually hits more biomedia on each pass going through the XP filters

You have no idea what you're talking about. The small cross sectional area keeps the flux capacitor in place.

I think the mass opinions on Rena's products will speak for themselves. You say poorly built? Well I think the FX5's are far more crappily built than XP3's. My proof? How many "rena filstars suck" threads have you seen lately? I've seen 2-3 in the last 5-6 months. How many "My FX5 died" threads have you seen? I've seen one every few days.

I have several Rena's, and there is NO basis for even comparing them to FX5's. So what, they overstate the aquarium size they can fit on. Next you're going to tell me that the 1" per gallon rule doesn't always apply?

This whole thread is silly, just some people who had a bad experience getting into an argument based on opinion that they've turned into facts.

 

[12 Volt Man]

I think the mass opinions on Rena's products will speak for themselves. You say poorly built? Well I think the FX5's are far more crappily built than XP3's. My proof? How many "rena filstars suck" threads have you seen lately? I've seen 2-3 in the last 5-6 months. How many "My FX5 died" threads have you seen? I've seen one every few days.

this is a good point. I was actually at my LFS today and the dry goods manager was changing the motor on one that died. she was having a hell of a time with changing it.

 

[12 Volt Man]

The small cross sectional area keeps the flux capacitor in place.

and it uses 1.21 Gigawatts of electricity..

 

[Jgray152]

Jgray, you do realize that the publshed flow rates for pretty much all the canisters with the exception of the XP series are rated WITHOUT media right?

Eheims flow rates are pretty close to actual flow with media. Which I why I say "Eheim with comparable flow rates".

you take the XP rate with media, compare it to another canister's rate without media, and then you complain the flow rate sucks on the rena LOL

Dude, I know more about filtration systems then you, I also know more about fluid dynamics than you. I also know more about physics than you.

I compair the rena XP filters to filters that publish the flow rates WITH media. Also known as "Filter Flow" or "Filtration Flow". You get confused with "Pump Flow" which is completly different.

are you trying to fool people or what?

Fool people with what?

Judging by this response, it is obvious you do not understand at all the how or why of a thermally protected motor.

Actually you don't judging by your responce.

Anyone who doubts this can do a small amount of research and understand.

They would result with the same info.

This is not a design to shut the motor of when the filter becomes clogged.

I never said it was. Although it does have a little relation to the filter clogging.

In actuality the motor does not heat up, the increased amperage from the motor working to hard heats the conductors and the overloads wired to the motor.

Thus, creating heat.... your point?

The overloads shut the motor off preventing damage and would repeatedly continue to do so untill the overloads burned up the motor will never be damaged.

Not true, I have used several motors with thermal protection. Over time, the electronics do get damaged. Its not just the "wires" that heat up as you say. Its the entire magnetic assembly.

I would question that the overloads would even ever come into play with a magnetic motor.

How do you think electric motors work? Magnets.... It doesn't mater what type of motor it is, if it heats up to much due to wear, torque resistance, insufficient cooling, or lack of maintenace (you could say that this could be contributed to clogging), the motor will heat up and it will just down at a certain temp. These safty circuits are not accurate to within a dagree. So two of the same motors put through the same testing could result in different shut down temps.

You statement regarding the bypass is heresay at best. Have you ever even seen a XP series filter let alone operated one?

Did you read my entire post when I said I bought a Xp4 last year, used it, noticed how much it sucked and gave it away for free?

Also, unless customer service was giving me crap, its true.