# What Size tank?



## subaruwrb (Dec 29, 2009)

Looking to get a new tank. I want to be able to keep some of the larger south and central american cichlids. Whats a good size tank over 100 gallons that would not be obsurd but still good enought to house some big fish.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

180 gallons is a good size. 6' x 2' x 2'.


----------



## tankhead (Aug 8, 2008)

Too large is not absurd if you have the room. While your at 180g, why not bump up to 220? It is still 6' long and will have a slightly larger foot print.


----------



## subaruwrb (Dec 29, 2009)

for cichlid tanks. Do i want a tank that is long? or do i want one that has more width with a larger surface area and footprint? And last , do i wnat a tank that is taller? I dont think the last choice goes well with cichlids.


----------



## scrubjay (Oct 25, 2009)

Here is the aquarium dimension chart
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/aquarium_sizes.php
I agree with Fogelhund--the 180 is nice because of the width. I found mine on craigslist.


----------



## cjm9822 (Feb 6, 2009)

get a 120 ... 180 looks way to big. 120 is a perfect size for cichlids.


----------



## steelers fan (Jun 26, 2009)

> get a 120 ... 180 looks way to big. 120 is a perfect size for cichlids.


can somebody please help me with this guy


----------



## scrubjay (Oct 25, 2009)

120 is a nice tank, but lots of fish like that extra 2'.
There is no such thing as a tank that is too big!!

blasphemy! :fish:


----------



## cjacob316 (Dec 4, 2008)

*cjm9822*
i would not consider a 120 the perfect size for cichlids, length is very important and 72 inches is better than 48 inches, especially with larger fish like oscars. if you want the 24 inch width, then get a 180.
*tankhead*
i assume the 220 you are refering too might be the 225? which has the same footprint as the 180, the height is not part of the footprint, and height is not important for cichlids


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Dec 7, 2005)

I like the 180. I got a 125 and really wished I had got either a 4 foot 120 or a 6 foot 180. The 2' depth really makes a difference.


----------



## Gopherboy128 (Aug 10, 2006)

I vote for the 180


----------



## cjacob316 (Dec 4, 2008)

or the 200 :wink: 96 inches is a lot of tank for a lot of big fish


----------



## vfc (Feb 13, 2007)

The relative swimming area between a 120G and a 220G and what a cichlid has in nature is like comparing .00123% and .00124%; it is meaningless.

Of course a bigger tank is better. Just to outdo you guys, I recommend a minimum of 500G. Now try and top that!

The actual determining factors for tank size are: cost, space, and how much maintenance time and effort you are willing to invest. Someone should make a chart where you can determine your maximum tank size based on those inputs.


----------



## zazz (Apr 5, 2008)

vfc said:


> The relative swimming area between a 120G and a 220G and what a cichlid has in nature is like comparing .00123% and .00124%; it is meaningless.
> 
> Of course a bigger tank is better. Just to outdo you guys, I recommend a minimum of 500G. Now try and top that!
> 
> The actual determining factors for tank size are: cost, space, and how much maintenance time and effort you are willing to invest. Someone should make a chart where you can determine your maximum tank size based on those inputs.


i have a large house with rooms that arent used ... and i have these daydreams of these long tanks filled with huge fish and it all makes perfect sense.. but then i think about the maintenence and the dream fades away.


----------



## noddy (Nov 20, 2006)

I have 5' 120's and 6' 220's. The 220 is a foot longer and 6" wider. Not to mention the extra 100 gallons of water that dilute the nitrates. 5' 120's are great but if you want to keep some Furcifers the 220 is better. If you want some big petrochromis, get an eight footer.


----------



## vfc (Feb 13, 2007)

but a 500G is even better.


----------



## noddy (Nov 20, 2006)

You can say that again.


----------

