Tweet
Thank you Ek for summing that up nicely. I've asked folks similar questions before, and got good answers, just not as complete as yours. Geral, I can't really answer your poll as I don't have any hands on experience. My first canister filter--a 2217 is according to UPS somewhere in Illinois ATM. I can give you some raw data and general thoughts for you to chew on.
Prices based on best I could find in about 20 mins worth of snooping around on the net (not including taxes if applicable, or shipping if charged). Flow figures on filters are usually a bit pie in the sky over rated from real world figures. Fluval gives a no-media and with media (brand new media, probably less than crammed full) flow rate, Eheim lists just one flow rate.
2 X Eheim2217. (Figures are total for both combined)
Flow 528 gph. Media volume 3.2 gallons. Wattage consumed 40 watts. Price $259.98
Fluval FX5.
Flow 925/607 gph. Media Volume 1.5 gallons. Wattage consumed 48 watts. Price $239.99
Eheim 2262
900 gph. Media volume 4.8 gallons. Wattage consumed 80 watts. Price $399.99
Other thoughts. The Fluval has a nifty double return and black, rather than Eheim hideous green tubing. You can dye tubing black or replace the Eheim parts with optional black ones. Two filters are usually better than one to provide multiplely redundant life support systems—but as you already have 2 AC 110s running that point is moot. I see your poll is set to run for a month—and you already have AC 110s—so I am assuming you have a little wiggle room before you add more filtration. If you really would like a 2262 maybe consider waiting an extra month to save up the $140-160 price difference? Those Eheims are supposed to last for decades with minimal repair. If you get one it’ll probably be with you the remainder of your fish keeping hobby. That being said the 2 X 2217s are a maybe better bang for the buck, and with 2 intakes and outputs would mix up the water better—but once again you have the 2 AC 110s so it makes little difference in your case.
I’ve been told by a regular poster here who has used both FX5s and 2262s on the same tank that they would use the FX5 as all mechanical and the 2262 as all biological. I’ll let them expand on that if they wish to.
It would help subsequent posters to form an opinion tell us if you are intending to use a very fine or sand substrate—due to as Ek pointed out the FX5s difficultly in dealing with that.
I’m interested in comments others might have in comparing how difficult the various canisters are to restart, and how hard it is to crack them open and service them. Also interested in the convenience (if any) of the basket system in the FX5 vs. just piling media in loose with pad disks and or with media bags in the Eheims, vs. reduction in flow and less efficient water paths through the system.
EDIT--Geez it took me so long to write the above everyone else had it covered before I posted it--lol.
Prices based on best I could find in about 20 mins worth of snooping around on the net (not including taxes if applicable, or shipping if charged). Flow figures on filters are usually a bit pie in the sky over rated from real world figures. Fluval gives a no-media and with media (brand new media, probably less than crammed full) flow rate, Eheim lists just one flow rate.
2 X Eheim2217. (Figures are total for both combined)
Flow 528 gph. Media volume 3.2 gallons. Wattage consumed 40 watts. Price $259.98
Fluval FX5.
Flow 925/607 gph. Media Volume 1.5 gallons. Wattage consumed 48 watts. Price $239.99
Eheim 2262
900 gph. Media volume 4.8 gallons. Wattage consumed 80 watts. Price $399.99
Other thoughts. The Fluval has a nifty double return and black, rather than Eheim hideous green tubing. You can dye tubing black or replace the Eheim parts with optional black ones. Two filters are usually better than one to provide multiplely redundant life support systems—but as you already have 2 AC 110s running that point is moot. I see your poll is set to run for a month—and you already have AC 110s—so I am assuming you have a little wiggle room before you add more filtration. If you really would like a 2262 maybe consider waiting an extra month to save up the $140-160 price difference? Those Eheims are supposed to last for decades with minimal repair. If you get one it’ll probably be with you the remainder of your fish keeping hobby. That being said the 2 X 2217s are a maybe better bang for the buck, and with 2 intakes and outputs would mix up the water better—but once again you have the 2 AC 110s so it makes little difference in your case.
I’ve been told by a regular poster here who has used both FX5s and 2262s on the same tank that they would use the FX5 as all mechanical and the 2262 as all biological. I’ll let them expand on that if they wish to.
It would help subsequent posters to form an opinion tell us if you are intending to use a very fine or sand substrate—due to as Ek pointed out the FX5s difficultly in dealing with that.
I’m interested in comments others might have in comparing how difficult the various canisters are to restart, and how hard it is to crack them open and service them. Also interested in the convenience (if any) of the basket system in the FX5 vs. just piling media in loose with pad disks and or with media bags in the Eheims, vs. reduction in flow and less efficient water paths through the system.
EDIT--Geez it took me so long to write the above everyone else had it covered before I posted it--lol.
Comment