REVIEW:Fluval FX5 vs Eheim Pro3 compared
- Thread starter taksan
- Start date
i see what you said originally that the fluval had 25 litres of foam, so i figured take out a couple litres of foam and put in some bio, but if it actually only holds 2.1 then nevermind, that and i didn't know you couldn't really remove the foam and still have the fluval function properly and not just bypass everything
While the prefilter looks like it is missing a piece, it actually is designed in a manner where there is no bypass.
Just the existence of an easily cleaned prefilter makes Eheim, IMO, the superior mechanical filter too.[/QUOTE]
Having owned both of these filters. It is quite obvious the eheim is the better biological filter but based on filter design I have to say it is a better mechanical filter as well. All the while using half the power. I love the Eheim.
Just the existence of an easily cleaned prefilter makes Eheim, IMO, the superior mechanical filter too.[/QUOTE]
Having owned both of these filters. It is quite obvious the eheim is the better biological filter but based on filter design I have to say it is a better mechanical filter as well. All the while using half the power. I love the Eheim.
JonF;1627254; said:
Here is the response from Eheim:
"Both Pro 3 and the large Classics (2260 and 2262) provide the same level of filtration. The difference between these units is the ease of maintenance and the flow rate. The 2080 Pro 3 will pump a maximum of 450 GPH while the 2262 will pump the double (900 GPH).
Considering that the Classic series does not have baskets nor a maintenance indicator and can not be used with regular filter pads, I will consider the 2080 as a more complete unit. However if you are looking for more flow, the 2260 or 2262 will be your best choices."
Add to the points they made the lower watt draw of the 2080 and the TWO intakes on that unit, and I also think the Pro III is the top performer.
