REVIEW:Fluval FX5 vs Eheim Pro3 compared
- Thread starter taksan
- Start date
As the post from the person who "Did the comparison" clearly points out, there is bias in the mix. Even with the numbers presented, there is so much in the language choice to show that those giving the information have a decided interest in how that information comes across. The comparison was done to further an agenda, and we have to read through the bias to look at what's really important to us as a consumer.
IDEA!
Do the comparison by saying: For $500 you can get... Nah, you won't go there. I can't believe I'm typing "$500" and "Aquarium Filter" in the same sentence! How much is this "new" Eheim filter going to cost? Does anyone who isn't independantly wealthy want to know?
Do us a favor and compare apples to apples. Make sure that the hardware facing off costs within 15% or so of each other. Save the "money no object" comparisons for the fantasy threads.
IDEA!
Do the comparison by saying: For $500 you can get... Nah, you won't go there. I can't believe I'm typing "$500" and "Aquarium Filter" in the same sentence! How much is this "new" Eheim filter going to cost? Does anyone who isn't independantly wealthy want to know?
Do us a favor and compare apples to apples. Make sure that the hardware facing off costs within 15% or so of each other. Save the "money no object" comparisons for the fantasy threads.
Personally, I consider certain aspects of the FX5 to be clumsily designed...yet, I own two of them. Here are some additional facts.
The FX5 is a filter designed primarily for mechanical filtration and secondarily for chemical and biological filtration. Internally, there are three media trays, each with two foam pads. Each media tray also has a shallow cylindrical central chamber where other media types are placed. Each foam pad has a surface area of approximately 49 square inches and a volume of approx. 73 cubic inches. The central chamber of each media tray has a surface area of approx. 33 square inches and a volume of approx. 116 cubic inches. Per media tray, there are 146 cubic inches (two foam pads) set aside for mechanical media versus 116 cubic inches devoted to chemical and biomedia. Collectively, all three media trays hold a total of approximately 7.2 liters (1.9 gallons) of foam versus 5.7 liters (1.5 gallons) of chemical and biological media. In other words, the FX5 will hold about 20% more sponge than chemical/biological media. It gets worse. Due to the way that the foam pads sit within the media tray, it is not possible to add foam pads of smaller porosity in back of the white foam pads supplied with the filter. The only way to add water polishing pads, etc., is to add them to the central media chambers, which further reduces the volume available for chemical and biological medias. Basically, you have a design in which there is an inordinately large surface area and volume of medium porosity foam acting as a initial barrier to trap particulate debris and then a smaller volume of chemical/biological media to deal with water chemistry. The overall surface area of the foam pads is approx. 294 square inches and this followed by an aperture of approx. 33 square inches for the central media chamber. This is a 9:1 ratio.
So, you have to ask yourself if this is a good design, based upon your individual tank setup, or merely tolerable. For tanks in which chunks of uneaten food and other macroscopic debris are frequently sucked into the filter intake, this system may help to maintain higher flowrates longer. For other tanks, where the objective is to max out the biomedia, the FX5 may be undesirable.
The FX5 is a filter designed primarily for mechanical filtration and secondarily for chemical and biological filtration. Internally, there are three media trays, each with two foam pads. Each media tray also has a shallow cylindrical central chamber where other media types are placed. Each foam pad has a surface area of approximately 49 square inches and a volume of approx. 73 cubic inches. The central chamber of each media tray has a surface area of approx. 33 square inches and a volume of approx. 116 cubic inches. Per media tray, there are 146 cubic inches (two foam pads) set aside for mechanical media versus 116 cubic inches devoted to chemical and biomedia. Collectively, all three media trays hold a total of approximately 7.2 liters (1.9 gallons) of foam versus 5.7 liters (1.5 gallons) of chemical and biological media. In other words, the FX5 will hold about 20% more sponge than chemical/biological media. It gets worse. Due to the way that the foam pads sit within the media tray, it is not possible to add foam pads of smaller porosity in back of the white foam pads supplied with the filter. The only way to add water polishing pads, etc., is to add them to the central media chambers, which further reduces the volume available for chemical and biological medias. Basically, you have a design in which there is an inordinately large surface area and volume of medium porosity foam acting as a initial barrier to trap particulate debris and then a smaller volume of chemical/biological media to deal with water chemistry. The overall surface area of the foam pads is approx. 294 square inches and this followed by an aperture of approx. 33 square inches for the central media chamber. This is a 9:1 ratio.
So, you have to ask yourself if this is a good design, based upon your individual tank setup, or merely tolerable. For tanks in which chunks of uneaten food and other macroscopic debris are frequently sucked into the filter intake, this system may help to maintain higher flowrates longer. For other tanks, where the objective is to max out the biomedia, the FX5 may be undesirable.
You're introducing a bias when you put a limit on the price. Price is the last thing to take into consideration and is only the decider when the two products are evenly matched.vadryn;1379302; said:
While the Eheim may have a slower flow rate, the Eheim distributors to Australia have assured me this is intentional. It is not SLOW, just slower than the fluval and produces a longer dwell time through the media. I guess its a personal preference but the 4 large clip on canister clips on the Eheim look much easier and faster to open/close than all those screw ons with the Fluval. Agree with the main concensus.... we the fishkeepers are the real winners with 2 good filters to choose between.
I would get the eheim every time. I dont even consider the cost difference. After spending so much time effort and money in finally finding just the right specimens of fish you want and getting that "perfect" what ever fish why would you even worry about the difference in price?. I would try to get the best filtration possible regardless of the cost difference. This is just my personal opinion anyway.
I give these guys credit for having performed this test. However, the one shortcoming is that the results reflect pristine media. If the Eheim starts out with a slower flowrate and the mechanical media becomes impacted with debris, the result is going to be an even slower flowrate. My recollection is that the Eheim will hold approx. 2x the biomedia as the FX5. With all of this biomedia, I wonder if the mechanical media (particularly the surface area) is sufficient? The Eheim prefilter also has a large, central piece missing which further reduces its mechanical filtration capacity. The FX5 seems to have an overage of mechanical media, but this could quickly become an asset under real life-conditions.
Eheim rates higher in my book; seems to be the Mercedes-Benz of aquarium equipment. Everybody that I've asked who have both seem to prefer the Eheim more.
