# good filter



## jrlandsman (Feb 27, 2007)

quick guys im heading to fish store, whats the best filter at a decent price one thats not a hang on, i want a good on but a decent price! help quick i wanna go get one now! haha thanks a ton guys


----------



## SUS (Mar 10, 2007)

get an XP3, print out the price match sheet on the petsmart website and take it in.


----------



## jrlandsman (Feb 27, 2007)

o yeah i have overcrowded 55 gallon anything else i should get?


----------



## ICEE (Feb 3, 2007)

a hob filter like a ac110 or emp400


----------



## SUS (Mar 10, 2007)

jrlandsman said:


> a hob filter like a ac110 or emp400


he said he didn't want a HOB


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

get an eheim classic

you can find them for like 100$ in the US. and they beat the pants off of a Rena


----------



## jrlandsman (Feb 27, 2007)

i got a fluval 405, is that good or no


----------



## SUS (Mar 10, 2007)

yeah, that is a very good one. It will definately do the job on that 55 gal


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

good choice









how much did you pay for it?


----------



## Coldfire (Aug 20, 2003)

Yes, a fluval 405 is a great filter. I have 205 on my Reef, and a 305 on one of my FW tanks (along with two 350 HOB's). I really like that canister filter, and the self primming lever is wonderful starting the syphon. That is a very good choice.

OH, BTW guys, if you do your homework on-line about equipment you can normally get equipment for even cheapor. E.g. the petsmart price match is wonderful on smaller items (e.g. heaters, etc..), but if you are going to buy a large canister then research the price on line. Even with shipping you can get it cheaper.

I will use the XP3 as an example. You can have petsmart price match their on-line price at $149.99 which is a nice price for that filter. However, if you have done your research (this took me two seconds) then you will see that Big Al's has the XP3 for $89.99 and the shipping should be $10.95. I am not sure if the "heavy shipping charges" apply here, but they are normally $5-$10 extra. If you live near one of these stores you can go there and see if they will match their on-line price. This applies to those looking for equipment, and can wait a few days before receiving it. Of course, if you need the equipment ASAP then go to your LFS and pick up whatever you need. I am just trying to help save everyone some money.


----------



## Aaronic (Apr 22, 2005)

Puff said:


> get an eheim classic
> 
> you can find them for like 100$ in the US. and they beat the pants off of a Rena


eheim classics blow the pants off a rena? i guess u haven't owned both as i have had several of each.

cleaning:

rena wins hands down

bypass:

tie, as neither filter's design allows for bypass

media:

more media can be put in the rena XP3

waterflow:

top line eheim classic doesn't flow as much as the xp3

price:

rena wins here again

easy decision....


----------



## Aaronic (Apr 22, 2005)

And the fluvals all bypass once the sponge is full of debris.....


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

Aaronic said:


> get an eheim classic
> 
> you can find them for like 100$ in the US. and they beat the pants off of a Rena


eheim classics blow the pants off a rena? i guess u haven't owned both as i have had several of each.

cleaning:

rena wins hands down

bypass:

tie, as neither filter's design allows for bypass

media:

more media can be put in the rena XP3

waterflow:

top line eheim classic doesn't flow as much as the xp3

price:

rena wins here again

easy decision....
[/quote]

ok?

the eheim i have can hold more media than a rena. if you choose a filter based on how easy it is to clean you are just lazy. the eheim isnt even hard to clean. or if you are really that incredibly lazy you just buy media bags to keep your biological media in. the eheim classic has the intake come in through the bottom and output through the top. hence all the water that goes into it gets fully filtered. unlike the rena where the intake and output are right next to eachother on the top, and SOME water doesnt even get filtered. you'll also probably try to play the "well the rena has a high GPH rating." well...sure it does...but it isnt as efficient as the eheim is.

i have owned both. there's a reason i own all eheims now. when i brought the Rena home i thought i pulled a kid's toy out of the box. i quickly returned it for another eheim. the price difference was all of 10$...my buddy has an xp3 and has had some trouble with it. leaks and such.

obviously its a personal opinion, but ill take spending the extra 10$ and keep the eheim. from my experience they have been the better filter. but again, that is in my personal opinion. i know some ppl on here live and die by rena's. i was just giving my opinion on a good, cheap-ish filter.


----------



## Aaronic (Apr 22, 2005)

Puff said:


> get an eheim classic
> 
> you can find them for like 100$ in the US. and they beat the pants off of a Rena


eheim classics blow the pants off a rena? i guess u haven't owned both as i have had several of each.

cleaning:

rena wins hands down

bypass:

tie, as neither filter's design allows for bypass

media:

more media can be put in the rena XP3

waterflow:

top line eheim classic doesn't flow as much as the xp3

price:

rena wins here again

easy decision....
[/quote]

ok?

the eheim i have can hold more media than a rena. if you choose a filter based on how easy it is to clean you are just lazy. the eheim isnt even hard to clean. or if you are really that incredibly lazy you just buy media bags to keep your biological media in. the eheim classic has the intake come in through the bottom and output through the top. hence all the water that goes into it gets fully filtered. unlike the rena where the intake and output are right next to eachother on the top, and SOME water doesnt even get filtered. you'll also probably try to play the "well the rena has a high GPH rating." well...sure it does...but it isnt as efficient as the eheim is.

i have owned both. there's a reason i own all eheims now. when i brought the Rena home i thought i pulled a kid's toy out of the box. i quickly returned it for another eheim. the price difference was all of 10$...my buddy has an xp3 and has had some trouble with it. leaks and such.

obviously its a personal opinion, but ill take spending the extra 10$ and keep the eheim. from my experience they have been the better filter. but again, that is in my personal opinion. i know some ppl on here live and die by rena's. i was just giving my opinion on a good, cheap-ish filter.
[/quote]

Which eheim do you have that holds more media than an XP3? Easy clean-up is important for anyone who likes to keep their filter clean, lazy or not.

The design of the rena does not allow for bypass unless it is not setup correctly. That is why when the media gets too clogged with debris, the filter stops flowing. I understand completely how both filters work, and neither design allows for bypass. Fluvals are another story alltogether.

As far as I am concerned, the eheim is a quality product, but the rena does the same job a hell of a lot better.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

again. that is both of our personal opinions.

ok...cant find the stupid capacity for the xp3. i believe that the xp3 and eheim classic 2217 are within half a litre of eachother. which isnt a big deal either way.lol

i could find the specs for the xp2, but not xp3







lol.

i THINK (from memory) that the xp3 holds something like 6.3 or 6.4 litres of capacity. so my bad

but at the same time, sure it has a higher capacity, but the water passes through it faster thus isnt filtered as efficiently. both do almost the exact same job, but the eheim runs silently. ive never seen a rena that runs silently (from my experiences at least)

one other thing about capacity. doesnt the rena basically hold the media in trays in the centre of the filter, while the water goes around the outside? that takes away some of the media capacity, more so than the little gaps at the top and bottom of the eheim classic. so im pretty sure the capacities are VERY close, thus a moot point

also. the reason i chose the eheim over the rena (when i originally bought the rena) was the sound. i needed something absolutely silent to run in my bedroom.lol


----------



## KISS (Feb 2, 2007)

Puff said:


> again. that is both of our personal opinions.
> 
> ok...cant find the stupid capacity for the xp3. i believe that the xp3 and eheim classic 2217 are within half a litre of eachother. which isnt a big deal either way.lol
> 
> ...


LOL







to be honest, XP3 is a good or the best filter for North America, on other parts of this earth, ppl don't even compare xp whatever with Eheim cannister whatever!


----------



## Aaronic (Apr 22, 2005)

Puff said:


> again. that is both of our personal opinions.
> 
> ok...cant find the stupid capacity for the xp3. i believe that the xp3 and eheim classic 2217 are within half a litre of eachother. which isnt a big deal either way.lol
> 
> ...


Both of my Rena's are extremelly quiet. Only sound I can hear is the water agitation at the top of the tank.

With the XP3/XP4 the water comes down along all 4 sides of the baskets, and then is sucked from underneith and forced through all the media baskets before it is pumped back out to the tank. As long as all of the baskets are in place properly, it is impossible for water to bypass.

I have nothing against eheims, i have owned a few... I just really took to the Rena's after owning one.. if I change filters it will only be to an FX5 just because it is so much more powerful.

And how does more water flow make the filter less efficient? I would figure since there is no by-pass with either filter, all of the flow is being filtered, so efficiency is the same?


----------



## KISS (Feb 2, 2007)

Aaronic said:


> again. that is both of our personal opinions.
> 
> ok...cant find the stupid capacity for the xp3. i believe that the xp3 and eheim classic 2217 are within half a litre of eachother. which isnt a big deal either way.lol
> 
> ...


Both of my Rena's are extremelly quiet. Only sound I can hear is the water agitation at the top of the tank.

With the XP3/XP4 the water comes down along all 4 sides of the baskets, and then is sucked from underneith and forced through all the media baskets before it is pumped back out to the tank. As long as all of the baskets are in place properly, it is impossible for water to bypass.

I have nothing against eheims, i have owned a few... I just really took to the Rena's after owning one.. if I change filters it will only be to an FX5 just because it is so much more powerful.

And how does more water flow make the filter less efficient? I would figure since there is no by-pass with either filter, all of the flow is being filtered, so efficiency is the same?
[/quote]


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

Aaronic said:


> And how does more water flow make the filter less efficient? I would figure since there is no by-pass with either filter, all of the flow is being filtered, so efficiency is the same?


water goes through the media faster, thus spends less time getting filtered.

slower flow = more time to get filtered.

but then again, if the one filter is pumping out WAY higher GPH than the other, then it wont make a huge difference, as there is a higher volume of water being filtered slightly less efficiently.


----------



## Aaronic (Apr 22, 2005)

Puff said:


> And how does more water flow make the filter less efficient? I would figure since there is no by-pass with either filter, all of the flow is being filtered, so efficiency is the same?


water goes through the media faster, thus spends less time getting filtered.

slower flow = more time to get filtered.

but then again, if the one filter is pumping out WAY higher GPH than the other, then it wont make a huge difference, as there is a higher volume of water being filtered slightly less efficiently.
[/quote]

So you are saying a slower flow is better?


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

no
im saying that is CAN be better.

for biological filtration is is far better than having faster flow. for mechanical it doesnt really matter. i use my canister for biological filtration, and the slower flow rate is much better for that type of filtration.

with mechanical filtration it gets filtered no matter how fast it goes through, but i would assume if it was slightly slower then more crap might get picked out of the water as opposed to getting forced through at a faster rate.

i would assume more time in media = more crap filtered out


----------

