Page 1 of 2

Canister filter specification comparison chart

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:56 pm
by Fuzzy Hamster
There is a nice canister filter specification comparison chart here;

http://www.petsolutions.com/Info.aspx?id=59

It doesn't have the Fluval FX5 but other Fluvals are there.

[admin note] As requested, I stickied this page and transferred most of the content to a page on the main site: www.redearslider.com/filter_chart.html

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:19 pm
by mat012
Very cool! It fuels my inner filter geek!

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:38 pm
by untsmurf
That would be really great for people doing filter shopping. If only they could add a column that had prices

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:22 am
by Chrisbarnett
Thanks for posting this! Just what I have been searching for.
Like Melissa said, It fuels my inner filter geek.

Just too bad it doesn't say the actual flow rate, just what the factory GPH ratings are. Would be nice to see it like that.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:32 am
by Fuzzy Hamster
Yah... Chris, I thought I remembered someone mentioning in another post about wanting to get some numbers for comparison, but I wasn't sure if it was you or not.

As far as the actual flow rate, I think that for comparison purposes it is better to go with the factory flow ratings since they are what is typically published, and then just remember the 5x/hr. rule of thumb.

You also have to remember that actual flow rate is going to be different on a case-by-case basis because of differences in filter media used (type, brand), how it is laid out in the baskets, and how dirty the media is (i.e. how long since it was last cleaned/replaced). As a result, actual flow rate will differ enough that it may not be as reliable a method for comparing different brands & models.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:10 am
by Chrisbarnett
Fuzzy Hamster wrote:Yah... Chris, I thought I remembered someone mentioning in another post about wanting to get some numbers for comparison, but I wasn't sure if it was you or not.

As far as the actual flow rate, I think that for comparison purposes it is better to go with the factory flow ratings since they are what is typically published, and then just remember the 5x/hr. rule of thumb.

You also have to remember that actual flow rate is going to be different on a case-by-case basis because of differences in filter media used (type, brand), how it is laid out in the baskets, and how dirty the media is (i.e. how long since it was last cleaned/replaced). As a result, actual flow rate will differ enough that it may not be as reliable a method for comparing different brands & models.


Ya, that was me! :)

I completely agree with you. There are just too many factors that go into what the actual flow rate will end up being.

It might be able to be done, if they went with some specified amount of mechanical/biological/chemical filtration media, but even then, it's not a reliable way to say actual flow rate since basket configurations are so varied from the fluval to Renas to Eheims.

In the end, it really isn't realistic to want to see a comparison of actual flow rate.

if someone wanted to be really picky about it, when purchasing a canister, they could knock off say 50-100GPH off the factory rating and then use the 5x rule, accounting for actual GPH rates when they have it stuff with media. But it's not necessary.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:34 am
by Fuzzy Hamster
Chris, I agree it is not necessary. It is more than likely that the 5x/hr rule came to be the defacto rule of thumb for turtle tanks because it already takes the difference between published and actual flow rates into account. If knocking 50-100GPH off the factory rating was really necessary, then I suspect we might have the 6x/hr rule instead, if you know what I mean...;-)

Most rules of thumb (in any industry) become what they are in order to simplify decision making for people that are inexperienced or new (dare I use the word 'noob') to a particular area rather than trying to teach all the factors that should go into the decision making process. I believe the same holds true here.

Not to say that any rule of thumb is bad, just that sometimes the rules are remembered without the necessary understanding of what factors went into producing the rule.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:48 am
by Chrisbarnett
I agree. I hadn't really thought about the 5x rule very much, but reading you saying it, it just makes sense that stuff like that would already be taken into account for the simplicity of it.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:15 am
by fishyfingers
The Fluval GPH Flow rates are wrong in the table. Should be;

105 - 125
205 - 180
305 - 260
405 - 340

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:01 pm
by mikee
Fuz -- The data in the site you put up on the filters are for fish tanks by fish people. The only thing you may consider is the gph. Turtles take much more gph than fish do. Fish folks at the pet stores try and tell you that you have to "double or triple" or what ever and they are still off base. I have been using the 5x rule for over 25 years and it came from an experienced person back then. Your are correct about the "rule of thumb". It depends on who's rule and who's thumb. From my perspective the 5x is a good place to start. The more water you pump the cost goes up and the turtle does not know the difference.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:03 pm
by mikee
fish-f -- You are correct about the flow rates on the Fluvals.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:44 pm
by Fuzzy Hamster
mikee, the table lists manufacturer provided specifications, and with the exception of possible errors (as fishyfingers suggested) it is really agnostic as to where the filter is used. The only item in the table that I can see that you might have an issue with being "for fish tanks by fish people" is the "Designed for Aquariums sized" column. While, as you suggest, it doesn't conform to the 5x/hr rule, it is still a manufacturer provided spec. Take a look at Hagen's specs for the Fluval filters as an example.

All the other specifications are essentially physical characteristics of the filters that are useful for comparisons regardless of whether it is to be used for a fish tank or turtle tank.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:15 am
by mikee
Fuzz - I have been down this road before. Take a look at the Marineland 350 magnum for a 100 gallon tank. For two 4 inch healthy sliders that is not enough. For 10 guppies and an angle fish it will do ok. I have had the suggested sizes that the pet stores recommended and they were not big enough. It did not take me long to catch on. I size my tanks by the gph only.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:33 am
by Fuzzy Hamster
mikee, I think your missing my point. I completely agree with you regarding the 5x/hr rule of thumb. My point is simply that the chart is based on manufacturers specs and is still very useful for comparisons, especially in regards to physical dimensions, for example, if someone has limited under tank cabinet space, or is looking for specific tubing sizes, or just wants to see what the rated water flow is, etc.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:09 am
by fishyfingers
Why look at GPH only? I think canister volume is also very important. The more bio media you can fit in the canister the less GPH you would need. For example the FX5 has a GPH of 924 and the Eheim 2080 has 447 GPH. But because the eheim canister can hold 12 liters of bio media (not including sponges) instead of the fluval's 6, it can cycle a new tank after 11 days over the fx5's 13.

BTW I got these figures from here ---> http://www.discusforums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7080 I know this guy is a fish person, but i think that his findings are still relevant since the most important wastes to consider are Ammonia and Nitrite. [/url]