Jump to content

FX5


waruna

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

I would like to know the following if you own a Fluval FX5:

If you are still happy with the purchase or not?

What kind of filter material you use?

What kind of substrate you use in the tank?

Much appreciated.

Waruna smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi mate,

As u know i am still happy with my FX5 and although it is not as "classy" as the Eheim Pro III, i think it does the job and i have had no problems with it so far.

I have heard that Jamie returned his because it was sucking up sand and the motor was losing power, but he has since returned it, but i think he is still having problems. I guess the difference is the motor in the FX5 is on the bottom whereas the motor in the Eheim is on the top so any fine sand will cause havoc in the FX5.

I don't see it will be a problem with your tank since it looks like u are using larger substrate.

Obviously, if u can get a good price on one of these Eheims go for it...i am sure u will be happy with it as well.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi mate,

As u know i am still happy with my FX5 and although it is not as "classy" as the Eheim Pro III, i think it does the job and i have had no problems with it so far.

I have heard that Jamie returned his because it was sucking up sand and the motor was losing power, but he has since returned it, but i think he is still having problems. I guess the difference is the motor in the FX5 is on the bottom whereas the motor in the Eheim is on the top so any fine sand will cause havoc in the FX5.

I don't see it will be a problem with your tank since it looks like u are using larger substrate.

Obviously, if u can get a good price on one of these Eheims go for it...i am sure u will be happy with it as well.

Dave

Thanks mate, i found a few interesting threads on this subject. I think i will get one and see for myself.

Here's what i found any way, one interesting thread smile.gif

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=116448

Yes i do use river sand; it is 1mm-3mm in size. I used play sand before and it complicated things for me. What filter media do you use?

Waruna smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone compared the fx5 to the Aqua One Aquis 2400? Will probably buy one or the other soon. Any suggestions?

Thanks

Brian

I have never used an Aqua one filter, so can't help you there.

I have ordered a FX5 and i should get it early this week. I'll let you know how it is.

Waruna :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone compared the fx5 to the Aqua One Aquis 2400? Will probably buy one or the other soon. Any suggestions?

Thanks

Brian

No comparison really one does 1000lt/h more from memory plus the Aquis are dam so air tight you need to restle them to get the motor off to clean. :lol3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Update.

I have had the FX5 running for about 3 months now and I am very impressed with it. I filled it up with EHIEM filter media (Small round balls) and it is doing a great job. I do not use sand in my tanks, I use 1mm to 3mm river sand. The only complain I have with this unit is, it didn't move much water (circulate water in the tank) with the out put nozzle which came with it. I simply changed it and the problem was quickly fixed. Here's a pic (I will be replacing the white one with a black one very soon). I think it does pretty close to 3500l/h.

IPB Image

Cheers,

Waruna :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote "No comparison really one does 1000lt/h more from memory plus the Aquis are dam so air tight you need to restle them to get the motor off to clean"

Since when does water volume determine which is the better filter ? I must be missing something here !

FYI, the FX5 is quoted at 3500 lph, but in reality is actually does just 2000 lph in practice. A recent test of the Eheim Pro 3 vs the Fluval FX5 clearly proved that increased water volume does not provide more effective filtration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, the FX5 is quoted at 3500 lph, but in reality is actually does just 2000 lph in practice.

That is illegal, it is called "False advertising" I wonder what Fluval has to say about this? How many Eheim’s and Fluval FX5’s got tested?

Cheers,

Waruna

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't virtually all brands rate them empty so the flow rate drops through the floor in practice? :confused:

Rumour has it Eheim rate them loaded, but that might be Eheim fanboy propaganda :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

u have to remember u can buy 2.5 FX5 for the price of one Eheim ProIII!

on the box for the FX5 the pump output is 3500lph however the filter circulation is quoted as 2300lph so there is no false advertising here.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't virtually all brands rate them empty so the flow rate drops through the floor in practice? :confused:

Don't they also generally rate them at zero head? This, combined with running empty, would have a great impact on the real life rating.

It's like most things, the manufacturer gives the power figures in the highest number they can back up. The product may only reach that level in certain circumstances but people love buying things with bigger numbers, this is the reason that AMD moved away from selling their CPUs based on clock speed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't virtually all brands rate them empty so the flow rate drops through the floor in practice? :confused:

It's like most things, the manufacturer gives the power figures in the highest number they can back up. The product may only reach that level in certain circumstances but people love buying things with bigger numbers, this is the reason that AMD moved away from selling their CPUs based on clock speed...

Wasn't it because they were the equivalent of Intel's running at that speed? I know we are slightly OT now, but Core2 Duo is really kicking some AMD butt!! Kinda wish I hadn't paid full freight for my AMD x2 4200+ :B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little off topic :p

The problem for AMD was Intel had a higher number rating on their CPUS and people automatically assumed that they were better. It didn't matter that AMD (at the time) was actually a better performing product...

Anyways...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waruna,

It is not false advertising on behalf of Fluval, the box actually does say that it will only 2300lph in

practice and 3500lph max (if running dry and no head !) In reality, you will never acheive anywhere

near the maximum. All cannister filters advertise their max lph rating, but in normal usage (ie,

under load and filled with media) the lph ratings are a lot lower, especially from the Chinese

made products. The Fluval FX5 did 1991 lph or 57% of the rated maximum, and the Eheim

Pro 3 did 1207 lph or an amazing 71% of its rated maximum. I have found that my Aquaone

cannister is even worse that the Fluval. It does just 40% of its rated maximum !

And in response to MoliroMan, the Eheim Pro 3 is now around 2 x Fluval FX5 price and no

longer 2.5 times. When you consider the benefits of the Eheim Pro3 over the Fluval FX5

(ie, more effective filtration, 50% less power usage saving approx $35 per year in power,

much more reliable, no headaches from Fluval's unreliability, and the longevity of the

Eheim's which should last 3 times as long as the Fluval) it is a no wonder that the Eheim

Pro 3 is the large cannister filter of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parallel

A little off topic :p

The problem for AMD was Intel had a higher number rating on their CPUS and people automatically assumed that they were better. It didn't matter that AMD (at the time) was actually a better performing product...

Anyways...

With a little bit of tweaking you can really crank that baby up. I wonder if you can do that to both canisters?

Anyone tried to overclock their canisters?

That report is excellent. thanks for the read.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From memory Eheim has a different philosophy to biological filtration that is not purely flow dependent. Their view is that it is the time the water is in contact with the biological material that is the governing factor. Hence most of their filters quoted for a particular size tank have lower flow rates than their competitors.

Don't virtually all brands rate them empty so the flow rate drops through the floor in practice? :confused:

Rumour has it Eheim rate them loaded, but that might be Eheim fanboy propaganda :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Taksan's comparison is very good. Shows that Eheim isn't necessarily the be all and end all - though having said that I haven't heard of Eheims having as many (or any) failures like the FX5 has been...

Overclocked cannisters is something you should look into :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a little bit of tweaking you can really crank that baby up. I wonder if you can do that to both canisters?

Anyone tried to overclock their canisters?

That report is excellent. thanks for the read.

Cheers

If I buy two FX5's does that mean I am running a dual core system?

Sorry nerdy IT joke :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me why an Eheim 2080 costs around $490 in UK and $985 here.

u have to remember u can buy 2.5 FX5 for the price of one Eheim ProIII!

on the box for the FX5 the pump output is 3500lph however the filter circulation is quoted as 2300lph so there is no false advertising here.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, that was without media. As you say, another $180 or so for the media pack to go with it...

The FX5 also comes without medai though, and a lot of people seem to use the Eheim media pack to fill these up. You are looking about about $280 difference for the FX5 over the 2080.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...