# Is it worth getting a 90 gal over a 75 gal for Malawi's ?



## tmcbride67 (Jul 6, 2007)

Currently, I have 15 demasoni, 5 yellow labs, 2 bristle nose plecs and 2 Sci Fri in a 55 gallon tank. I am looking in to getting a 75 gallon tank to give them some more room. Would there be any benefit in going with a 90 gal or even a 110 Xtra tall for these fish? All three of these tanks have the same length and width (48"x18"), they just get taller as you go up in gallons.

I know that floor space is much more important for Malawi cichlids, but I was thinking I might be able to add some acie to the mix if I went with a 90 gallon or 110 Xtra tall. I've heard that they tend to use the upper water column much more than other mbuna. Any thoughts?


----------



## venustus19 (Aug 30, 2007)

it's always nice to tell someone you have a tank xxx gallons... specially when you start getting into the 100's of gallons... but a 110XT would seem like a pain in the a$$ to clean... i would get the 90 though, they are nice tanks... 
also, about fish swimming in the upper levels of tanks, acei are supposed to be upper level swimmers, but when i get home from work, and peek around the corner at my tank, all the fish seem to swim up at the top... maybe they can kinda tell time, and know that that is about the time i feed them, i don't know, but most of my guys use all the space in the tank, not just the acei...
anyway, i would choose 90, but that is me...
good luck


----------



## Steve St.Laurent (Oct 2, 2008)

I bought a 90 and I thought about putting some haps in to use the upper parts of the tank - plan was mainly Mbuna. What I've found is that the Mbuna use the whole tank. I suppose it's possible that's because of how I have my rocks stacked but they do. Here's a pic of my 90 gallon:










They are often in that upper right part that is open. After seeing how they use the tank I have no desire to have anything other than Mbuna in there.


----------



## Afishionado (Jun 6, 2006)

Taller tanks = more water volume. Although the extra height doesn't increase the footprint there are still some benefits to the extra volume. That baing said, taller tanks are a pain to work in. Of my 150 and my 125, both of which have the same footprint, the 125 is definitely easier on the back when it comes to cleaning glass, removing rocks to catch fish, etc...


----------



## 748johnd (Jun 30, 2007)

I chose a 90 over a 75 and am glad I did.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

OK I'll have to chime in because my answer is 75G. Easier to reach into the tank, quicker to change water, less weight for the floor. The fish really only care about the bottom. I don't seem to have any problem with maintaining consistency in even my 10G tanks...so that is not a plus for me. I also like the lower profile better.


----------



## lotsofish (Feb 28, 2008)

I'm short so the 75 would be my preference. Easier to reach the bottom of the tank. If you can increase volume by a longer footprint (5 or 6 feet) that would be the way to go. Really nice to watch fish swim the length of the tank.


----------



## baza (Apr 7, 2008)

hi

Interesting comments there about the mbuna in the water column.

I have all kinds of mbuna including acei and I have also found that all my mbuna swim in all parts of the water column. There is definetly no noticable difference with the acei.

I also have only ever seen one fish claim a cave as such, mbuna are meant to be a cave/rock fish and I have only seen my male mpanga claim a shell that he dug the gravel out from. I wish i got to see more cave claiming behaviour lol the rest just swim around all over the place. I have stacks of rocks too.


----------



## natalie559 (Dec 6, 2007)

Interesting thread as I have a 75G and just saw a 90G in my area for $70. Curious if the switch would be worth the money and time. . . .


----------



## Afishionado (Jun 6, 2006)

Switch, no, addition, now that's another question :lol:


----------



## Floridagirl (Jan 10, 2008)

My 120 and 100 have the same footprint. I have rocks all the way up the 120 and they use all the space. I stock them both similarly in total # of fish. Don't think of it as having a bigger tank and therefore more fish....think of it as more volume, better water quality, and less water changes. Just my .02


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

It all depends on whether you can utilize the extra height or not. The rocks pretty much need to be right to the top of the tank for them to use the tank. I have a 90 gallon at the office, and it looks much more impressive than my 75's at home.










If you can't use the top portion of the tank, it is a waste...


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2008)

90G all the way! I don't agree with "The fish really only care about the bottom comment." My fish, including mbuna swim all over my 90G. You also don't have to stack the rocks to the top of the tank for fish to use the top portion of the tank. I have rocks going only half way up in my 90G, and my fish use every inch of my tank, top to bottom. 90G may be a little bit more work to maintain than 75G, but in my opinion, the 90G looks so much better, it's well worth the money and little bit more work to maintain the tank. However, that is one nice looking tank, Fogelhund.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

My fish swim in all parts of the water column too. They only "care" (fight over) the space on the bottom, LOL.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2008)

DJRansome said:


> My fish swim in all parts of the water column too. They only "care" (fight over) the space on the bottom, LOL.


Ok, that's true. :lol: My fish don't fight over the empty space near the top of the tank either.


----------



## tmcbride67 (Jul 6, 2007)

Thanks for all the replies. From the comments it seems like it wouldn't be a waste of money to get a 90 over a 75. I also think the 90 looks more impressive than the 75. I just didn't want to spend extra money to get a 90 if the fish were never going to use the extra height.

Now I just have to deal with the realities of purchasing over the theoretical of space utilization.  I've got a chance to pick up a bare 75 gallon for $50, but I need to decide by this weekend. Do I hold out for a 90 to come along on CL for a decent price, or do I go with the bird in the hand and get the 75? I know this is a personal decision, but was just interested in what others on this site would do.


----------



## venustus19 (Aug 30, 2007)

i say get the 75 for now and if the 90 comes aling before you setup the 75, you can always sell the 75 again... specially for $50... that is a good deal...
good luck to you.


----------



## punman (Oct 24, 2003)

I agree with the above.
I have a 90 because I found one used at a good price. Way cheaper than a new 75. Glad I got it.
However If I was putting out big bucks for brand new, I'd have got the 75 and saved some money over the cost of the 90.


----------



## Floridagirl (Jan 10, 2008)

Ask Natalie559. She just switched a 75 for a 90. It was a lot of work switching everything over. I drove to Tallahassee yesterday, and her 90 looks awesome! If you don't mind extra work... Otherwise , around here, I'm starting to see lots of tanks for sale, most of them have a stand and/or tops!


----------



## RTAGUE (Jun 20, 2007)

Grab the 75 for $50, definitely.


----------



## TrashmanNYC (Dec 10, 2007)

75 for $50?
GET IT!


----------



## TrashmanNYC (Dec 10, 2007)

75 for $50?
GET IT!


----------



## natalie559 (Dec 6, 2007)

I did indeed decide to get the 90G and replaced my 75G. It was a lot of work, but the end result was so worth it to me. I think the 90G does look much more impressive. I like that when I walk up to the tank I am eye level with fish now and not the canopy.

With my height it will be harder to reach the bottom, as in I need a stool, but I love it! Also in my case the 90G was a nicer tank, thicker with NO scratches, which made the switch even more worth it!


----------

