XP3 - Not to Impressed.

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bderick67;2819992; said:
But what would your choice have been if no satisfied XP owners had stepped up and posted?
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to be polite when replying to posts. The fact is these filters aren't that great, especially at the normal price of $150. Sorry, but thats the truth. Heck the shipping weight on 2 of these filters was the same as 1 FX5. They are built lite and flimsy. I would recommend anyone to get 2 AC110s before they purchase 1 of these guys. I understand people look at their aquarium setups/filteration and take pride in what they have, so not trying to rain on anyones parade, but I'm not impressed with the XP3 after owning a wetdry/FX5/AC110s. It's definately at the bottom of the list compared to the others. But it is what it is. Once they fix the pricing problem at DR. Fosters, people would be crazy to spend $150 to have one of these things delivered. The looks are smooth/euro and the spray bar is very nice, but thats about it.
 
^^ agreed.

Also agreed one must take care of their equipment.

We use a couple of Magnum filters(250HOB and a 350) both have served us very well. Though they don't hold much for bio, they do a decent job for mechanical filtration. What little bio media they do hold works to seed other tanks. I would consider these cheap filters(both quality and cost) but maintaining them properly they have served us fine.




Deepsouth;2819979; said:
I agree with you. I should have started a thread that titled, "I'm I think my FX5 is a better filter than my XP3 that I just purchased". Its just that I heard tons of people saying great things about this filter, but IMO it turned out to be just a so so filter. For $109 you can't go wrong, but I wouldn't spend retail on this filter. The same could be said for the FX5 though. It is a great deal for $200, but I would think twice if it were $299+.
Click to expand...


My feelings too. 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.:(
 
flstffxe;2820584; said:
^^ agreed.

Also agreed one must take care of their equipment.

We use a couple of Magnum filters(250HOB and a 350) both have served us very well. Though they don't hold much for bio, they do a decent job for mechanical filtration. What little bio media they do hold works to seed other tanks. I would consider these cheap filters(both quality and cost) but maintaining them properly they have served us fine.







My feelings too. 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.:(
Click to expand...

Everything you say makes perfect sense. The Rena is growing on me, but after reading all of the hype I expected it to be better than it was. After getting the FX5, the XP3 just seemed like a bit of a downer. I couldn't beat the low price tag on the XP3 though. Bderick and a few others really like them. Those guys have been around a while, so I'm sure there is merit to what they say. I'll continue to try and tweak it and see if my opinion changes. I'm now having a problem with mine blowing microbubbles. Its probably something with the setup of media I'm thinking. I may try and Anhiem or however you spell it. I'm not looking forward to spending $400 though. I will probably try and check one out at a LFS before I buy it.
 
taking 2 ac110 over one xp3 is not a good choice imo....ya you have more flow rate, but imo aqua clears are built even flimsier than xp3 lol.

but hey, thats my opinion if you dont like xp3s then more power to ya. I happen love my xp3...so more power to me? i dont know, just use what you like haha simple as that

=]
 
Like you my FX5 was first then came the Renas. I feel like they were hyped up more then what they are. Even for what they are with all their short comings I would still buy another one for the $110 price. For that price it is a darn good filter for smaller tanks. To move over to other comparable options Fluval 5 series or Marineland C series would run you another $50+.

Wish I had the time to break down all the common filters into the "hobbyists" rated tank size in a excel type format. Would be useful for beginners...
 
I have a few XP3s and they're ok. They get the job done, but that's about it. Not my favorite filter by a long shot, but they work. Again, they aren't something spectacular with bells and whistles, they're just........filters.
 
I agree! its like I have a preference on the 400 power filter to AC 110..go figure...and its about 3 times cheaper...(and I have them both!) I think no one is comparing the rena XP3 or XP4 to a fluval.. just by looking at them together you can see the fluval is a beast..but to some I believe; like myself see the rena's as convienient canister filter...I also think people get their hopes up high when they see the flow comming out.. that its not BLASTING out...lol..it does well for what it made for..
 
rallysman;2820944; said:
I have a few XP3s and they're ok. They get the job done, but that's about it. Not my favorite filter by a long shot, but they work. Again, they aren't something spectacular with bells and whistles, they're just........filters.
Click to expand...

The best post, period. Just filters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom