# Help me decide which tank is a better choice



## DobermanOwner (Apr 24, 2014)

Hello. I am still considering setting up a cichlid tank. I posted this topic a while ago:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=312410

I have since located someone selling two large tanks; a 220 gallon and a 135 gallon. Both are sold as complete set ups. I can't decide on which to choose! I plan on putting it on the main level of my house against a load bearing wall in my living room. My house was built in 1989 and has 2X6 joists. Will either tank work as far as weight is concerned? I did a rough estimate of approx. 3,000 pounds for the 220 and 2,000 for the 135.

I haven't seen either take in person. The seller has sent me pictures and a little bit of info on each. Here's what I know:

135
Oak stand/canopy with built in lighting system
Bio wheel sump
18" wide tank
2 built in overflows

220
Open top design with suspended lighting system
Black wooden stand
24" wide
2 built in overflows
Sump (looks like maybe a 55 gallon)

Both were set up as saltwater reef tanks. The seller is a family friend and is cutting me a heck of a deal, so price isn't really a deciding factor. I have never worked with a tank this big. Is maintenance a lot easier? No tank I've had has had a sump/overflow system. I'm pretty sure both tanks have metal halide lights also.

Right now I have both of my existing tanks plugged into a power strip with a built in surge protector. Will this suffice for a tank with this much hardware?

I'm sure the seller will give me the rundown of how to get everything up and running, I just want to make an informed decision.

As soon as I can figure out how to post pictures, I will post what I have.


----------



## DobermanOwner (Apr 24, 2014)

220

























135


----------



## JimA (Nov 7, 2009)

What are the dimensions of each tank? I kind of like the 135, that being said I have a 240 but it looks longer than that 220, is that a 6 or 7 x24x36? I like floor or btm space vs vertical space.. But there is also a lot to be said about water volume and or what fish you want to keep?


----------



## jeffkro (Feb 13, 2014)

I personally like the looks of the 135 stand and canopy more.


----------



## mambee (Apr 13, 2003)

Just like TVs, bigger is better.


----------



## smitty814 (Sep 27, 2012)

I like the 135 because I think you would be more able to choose placement. Weight is a huge consideration. By the way&#8230;2X6 floor joists are hugely substandard.


----------



## DobermanOwner (Apr 24, 2014)

My hubby said they're actually 2x10 joists... Shows how much I know.

I went and looked at the tanks yesterday. Both are 6' long. The 220 has a 40 breeder sump and a really nice pump. The 135 has a nicer sump. The canopy and stand are nice on it but I'd have to paint it black to match my decor. I don't really need the lighting systems they have on either tank, so they're switching them out for a coral life compact fluorescent system with moonlights. I'd have to have a canopy built for the 220. I think I'm leaning more towards the 220, mostly because it's bigger and had a bigger footprint... But I still can't decide!


----------



## Deeda (Oct 12, 2012)

I have a 220G tank that is 72"L x 24"W x 30"H and the size is impressive. The wider tank (24") does allow a large amount of space for rock piles and other decorations and still offers space for swimming. The 30" height has a disadvantage when you need to work on the tank when it has water in it. I need to drain out at least 50% of the water AND stand on a sturdy 3-step ladder in order to reach the large rocks on the bottom. The tank has been set up since 2005 and I only had to remove the rocks one time because I needed to thin out the number of fish I had. This was a major undertaking and one that was very time consuming.

If your plans are for a long term cichlid set up, I would carefully choose the species stocking list and decor set up if you decide on the 220G tank. It can be a major hassle to try and remove fish that are incompatible from large tanks with lots of rock work.

If you plan on using live plants, definitely research lighting options due to the height of the tank.

BTW, I only have glass canopies and a strip light on my tank, using a full wood canopy will probably require 2 people to remove it in order to work in the tank.


----------



## Demasoni1 (Apr 9, 2014)

I have a 160 that is the same foot print as deeda's. I love the extra width, it is very useful.

And depending on if you are keeping hap/peacocks, then the height of the tank will be nice. But as Deeda said removing rocks and doing water changes can be difficult.


----------



## jimmie (Oct 23, 2002)

The bigger the tank the better, , more fish you can have...


----------



## lilscoots (Mar 13, 2012)

220 all the way if the joists are 2x10. The extra width makes for a lot more swimming room, i.e. fish can swim past eachother without one of them seeing it as a threat. I have tanks of both footprints and much prefer the 72x24 footprint


----------



## chopsteeks (Jul 23, 2013)

I like the 135 both depth wise and the looks of it. Comes down to what your stocking plans are.

One reason why I like the dimensions of 180(72*24*24) and the 240(96*24*). But, I am moving towards Frontosas which do not require the depth.

Comes down to ease of maintenance too. I am not too comfortable moving heavy rocks/decor when tank is too deep. Also agree with Deeda's comments in this area.

For a show tank/centerpiece tank, the 135 just needs a polishing here and there.


----------



## Mike_G (Nov 8, 2011)

I like the overflows being in the corner better.


----------



## Hapguy63 (Feb 8, 2014)

Normally I say the bigger the better but based off those pictures the 220 looks like a bit of a project. Lots of work to scrape all the salt deposits out of the tank. The stand on it looks a little rough probably needs to be refinished to take care of the salt deposits. Those lights on it are a bit of an overkill for fresh water as well. I would probably sell them and get something more appropriate for a cichlid tank.

I can't believe I am saying this but based off those pictures I would take the 135......


----------



## pelphrey (Apr 9, 2014)

Hapguy63 said:


> Normally I say the bigger the better but based off those pictures the 220 looks like a bit of a project. Lots of work to scrape all the salt deposits out of the tank. The stand on it looks a little rough probably needs to be refinished to take care of the salt deposits. Those lights on it are a bit of an overkill for fresh water as well. I would probably sell them and get something more appropriate for a cichlid tank.
> 
> I can't believe I am saying this but based off those pictures I would take the 135......


Cleaning the tank is easy. Just grab some gallon jugs of white distilled vinegar I'd probably get 5 gallons put them into the tank and fill the rest with water. Let it sit for a day or so. Won't have to really even scrub. The stand is another story. That could take a little more work to clean up.


----------



## Bikeman48088 (Nov 13, 2013)

Deeda said:


> ......
> 
> If your plans are for a long term cichlid set up, I would carefully choose the species stocking list and decor set up if you decide on the 220G tank. It can be a major hassle to try and remove fish that are incompatible from large tanks with lots of rock work.


Amen. I spent 2 hours yesterday attempting to remove an unruly blue cobalt from a 6' long 110gallon tank. I even removed all of the rocks. I gave up after stressing all of the fish so badly that my big Jack Dempsey was trying to hide behind a small filter tube. In one day, they went from coming to me whenever I approached the tank to scattering for cover when they see me now. :? 
It wasn't a total waste of time, though. I vacuumed the tank, cleaned the glass covers, changed the water and rearranged the landscape to buy some time until Plan B.


----------



## InfamousAquatics (Jun 24, 2014)

I vote 220!! Go big or go a little smaller. It all up to you lol


----------



## DobermanOwner (Apr 24, 2014)

I ended up going with the 220. Picked it up yesterday along with 185 pounds of dry rock. It was much easier to move than I anticipated. I think the size was the deciding factor for me.

The tank and stand were both cleaned up when I got there. The tank still needs a little TLC, but nothing I can't manage. I think I'm also going to repaint the stand just to be sure. The depth of the tank isn't really an issue for me. I stand on a step stool and I can reach the bottom with ease... my arms are just long I guess. I switched out the sumps and got the Bio Wheel sump that was supposed to go with the 135. The pump I got is a Baldor brand. I will have to change some of the plumbing to accommodate the different sump, but that shouldn't be an issue. They also threw in a 4' compact fluorescent light with t5 bulbs and moonlights. I will be getting three pieces of glass cut for a top and my uncle will build it a canopy eventually.

This project will keep me busy for quite some time! That will give me plenty of time to come up with the perfect stocking list.


----------



## DobermanOwner (Apr 24, 2014)

Here's the rock I got. 185 pounds. Was previously in a reef tank.


----------



## Deeda (Oct 12, 2012)

Congrats on the 'new' tank! I like the look of the rock and it should stack easily due to the various shapes.


----------

