I don't have any experience with them but I would prefer a standard 180 just because of the footprint. If you have any intentions of going with larger fish that footprint just isn't going to cut it.
one of the nicest Mbuna tanks I have ever seen was a 120 gallon 4x2x2 with a huge rock pile in the middle, with a whole lot of africans swimming in and around it.
The area I plan to place the tank is 5'7, so the tank will have to be 5 foot. If I buy a 6 footer, the tank will have to be placed at another place (I originally planned to get a 180G) but I really prefer to have this tank at a place I am around often, which a 6ft tank does not fit.
Tank depth is quite important with mbunas. My 55 Gallon tank has a horrible footprint.
From your oppinions, I'm guessing this is the better option:
Also, I was at our local hospital visiting a client and saw nthese guys cleaning the tank in the waiting room of the section I was in...
Started to talk to them and they were cleaning an Oceanic Bowfront... not sure which size... maybe a 90G or so...
I was amazed at the flimsy stand... the plastic bends in the canopy etc.... I am sure that the tank is sound... but I was not impressed with the stand....
OH... I just remembered.... They were to replace the stand... it's all particle board and it got wet some how.. and started to fall apart......!!!!!!
Check out the price of the two. You gain nothing in foot print with the higher tank. You do gain grief though because unless you have long arms it's hard to work on the bottom even with a step stool.
the mississauga Big Als has carried the 178 gallon. I have seen it there before but it costs a small fortune for the tank alone. Oceanics are very expensive..
eg. my Aqueon 150 was 480 + tax.
the oceanic 150 was 800+ tax..almost twice the price.