GREAT INFORMATIVE POST. I STILL LOVE MY FX5! I CANT EVER HEAR MINE RUNNING I HAVE TO TOUCH IT OR LOOK IN MY TANK TO TELL.
THANKS FOR DOING THIS POST.
THANKS FOR DOING THIS POST.REVIEW:Fluval FX5 vs Eheim Pro3 compared
- Thread starter taksan
- Start date
Thanks for this great thread. Answered all of my questions and then some. Very Great thread. Should be a Sticky if it isn't already! LOL. My overall question is why not just get the better 2262 or run both the FX5 and the 2080 together to maximize the pros of both canistiers. of course this is a choice of money is not an option. or straight prefrence of what you want out of your tank.
I've used several of their heater units for years with no troubles.Swann;1528255; said:Thanks for the insight ... fantastic review. what about the new Eheim 2180 with thermal, has anyone had any issues with maintenance on the heaters.
good review however you did not use similar media like you said you should have taken out some of the foam in the fluval and added more bio media to make a fair comparison, that would have probably made them dead even in the ammonia to nitrate test. With the exception of that i would say you did an awsome job, i think i would go out and get 2 Fx5's tho instead of one Eheim (just because then i would have an extra for back-up at the same price as the one Eheim)
How? 2080 has 12 litres +1.5 of foam. Fx 5 has 5.9 liters +2.1 litres of foam. if both filters are tested with only biological media and no foam the eheim still has more litres of bio media.canucksfan1;1536488; said:good review however you did not use similar media like you said you should have taken out some of the foam in the fluval and added more bio media to make a fair comparison, that would have probably made them dead even in the ammonia to nitrate test. With the exception of that i would say you did an awsome job, i think i would go out and get 2 Fx5's tho instead of one Eheim (just because then i would have an extra for back-up at the same price as the one Eheim)
Going off of manuals 2080 has 25 liters of "filtration volume" (whatever that is) fx5 has 20 litres of "filtration volume." How is it going to ever be dead even? The other problem is that the almost identical filters the 2060 and the 2062 seem to have a inverted relationship at biological processing if water is forced through media faster. faster water movment means lower dwell time and contact with media. Removing the foam which slows the water before contact with biological media might actully nullfy the advantage of filling ever spare void with bio media.
The design of the Fluval does not allow the foam to be removed or more biomedia to be added without creating massive bypass. The fluval was filled to its absolute maximum recommended capacity of biomedia.canucksfan1;1536488; said:good review however you did not use similar media like you said you should have taken out some of the foam in the fluval and added more bio media to make a fair comparison, that would have probably made them dead even in the ammonia to nitrate test. With the exception of that i would say you did an awsome job, i think i would go out and get 2 Fx5's tho instead of one Eheim (just because then i would have an extra for back-up at the same price as the one Eheim)
We have had 6 2180's in operation for over 6 months now with absolutely zero issues.Swann;1528255; said:Thanks for the insight ... fantastic review. what about the new Eheim 2180 with thermal, has anyone had any issues with maintenance on the heaters.
