# need help, UGF Filter with power heads or canister filter



## karin-77 (Jun 5, 2009)

Hello, i went to 3 different fish stores today and im more confused... :-?

my regular over hang filter broke so after being told a UGF filter with 2 powerheads is great, i went ahead and bought a UGF filter... after reading some reviews i wish i didnt, but now its to late.

i got a 45 gallon tank with 3 cichlids, lots of fake flants and rocks.

im also leaning towards getting a marineland canister filter magnum 350 instead of using the UGF with powerheads

i just need your input of what i should do, should i forget about the ugf filter and go with the canister instead??

i do regular waterchanges and good gravel cleaning once a month.

i would appreciate any help and input i can get in this matter

thanks!
Karin


----------



## under_control (Jan 9, 2008)

I would opt for a different option all together. Having filtered tanks with both the 350 and with powerhead/ugf combo's, I can say the best option is none of the above. THe 350 leaves a lot to be desired. FOr one, it has practically no room for media. They are great filters for polishing, and pretty good for mech, but they are less user friendly and just not as good of all around filters as many other options.

I'd consider an AC110 hob filter, or if you want a canister, get a xp3 or c360.

For economical reasons, the Aquaclear 110 is a great choice. I run it in combination with emperor 400 hob on my 75..

UGF filters don't do much in the realm of mechanical filtering, but are great bio filters.... but the downsides for me no longer outweigh the benefits.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

UGF filters are okay for fish that do not dig or otherwise move gravel around... which most if not all Cichlids do... They are also not such a good choice for 'dirty fish' or for fish owners who overfeed their fish to any degree...

In short, I wouldn't suggest them to any Cichlid keeper... If you want to go for super simple filtration I'd suggest sponge filters over UGFs...

I have a few of the Magnum 350s... They aren't the greatest filters, but are worth their pricetag. As mentioned, they do not have much room for fancy media, but in my experience fancy media isn't that important. Magnum 350s do have a pretty good flow rate with little to no bypass (water that bypasses the filter's media thus discharging unfiltered twater to the tank). As a "secondary filter' they are great with the micron cartridge (for fine particals) but as a primary filter the micron cartridge will get clogged pretty darn quick.

If you don't mind a filter hanging off the back of the tank, I love the AC110s. In my opinion they are simply the best bang for your buck, are easy to maintain and can last a good long time.

I'm not a fan of using canisters for mechanical filtration as they require more effort to clean and at my house that means less likely to get cleaned often enough. They also have much lower flow rates (per $) compared to HOBs. But if the hang on back (HOB) style filters aren't an option... there are other canisters that may serve you better as a primary filter than the Magnum (although you'll pay more for them).

As you can see... there is no short and simple answer to the question: What's the best fitler to get?... if there was we wouldn't have so many options


----------



## srook23 (Feb 21, 2009)

I had the UGF's and I wouldn't do it again. I'd stick with the canister. I went from having two HOB's and UGF with two powerheads to having two canisters and the canisters keep the tank so much cleaner it's not even funny.


----------



## karin-77 (Jun 5, 2009)

Thank you so much for taking time to give me your opinion.

went to the store today and bougth the canister, i got it running and hopefully it will work out for me, i gonna try to sell the UG Filter, hopefully i can get some money back 

sincerely
Karin


----------



## malibudandy (May 20, 2009)

I have actual experience with both a UFG as well as a Magnum 350.

I have been running for many years a 55 gallon overstocked Cichlid tank, UFG run with two Maxi-Jet 600's and an Eheim 2236. None of my other tanks are as clear as this, and I have many tanks with many different kinds of filters. I like the way the water clears up really fast after I do a water change. And that's the key. If you are going to do weekly water changes and gravel vacs, the UFG is just fine. With a cichlid tank, especially if it is not heavily planted (and who plants a lot in a cichlid tank?) you have to do regular water changes anyway since the nitrates have no place to go.

Regarding mechanical filtration, even with HOBs, or any filter, the crud has to go somewhere, and will only leave the system when you change out the mechanical filtration or prefilter. I get rid of it when I do the gravel vac. So I think the UFG is a great mechanical filter. As far as the crud under the filter plates, I find that with the regular vacs and the powerheads, this isn't a worry for me, especially when I have about 3 inches of gravel over the plates.

I think the Magnum 350 is really a POS. Try running the micron filter for more than a couple of days, and your flowrate goes to heck. And cleaning the micron filter is a continuing losing battle. Some people say it's great, they run it with nothing in the filter basket and just the blue filter sock; why is that? Because you can't get the flowrate to stay up for more than a week otherwise. Plus it's noisy, and consumes 3 times as much power as a small Eheim.


----------



## under_control (Jan 9, 2008)

I disagree. UGF's are not meant to be mech filters unless run in Reverse. I have never experienced one to be a sufficient mech filter. They are primarily(with heavy emphasis) biofilters.

While I agree the magnum is a sub par filter, the micron filter is ONLY meant to run for a day or two, not forever. That is what the filter sock is for.


----------



## R-DUB (Jun 3, 2007)

I would disagree with some of the statements. I would run both. Why not?? Two filters are better than one! A tank with UGF and a canister as opposed to a tank with just one?? This is not rocket science. UGF do have some draw backs, but regular vacuuming should solve all of this. As far as a UGF being a mech filter I agree. It does "strain-out" large particles. Leaving them in the gravel bed to be removed. But it is a bio-filter for the most part. Having large fancy goldfish the UGF is simply a life saver. With large amounts of poo being held down by the UGF I vac them out weekly. Without this the poo cant float around forever before it reaches an intake tube. Even then it is usually trapped on the intake strainer. Not pretty. Also the Mag's do have their draw-backs. Small media basket is the main one. Other than this it is a very powerful canister for the money. Half as much as some. With better performance. As far as maintenance, with the quik disconnects it take 10 seconds to remove the filter and carry it to the sink for cleaning. Not another filter is this simple. NONE! I have a 350 250 and a HOT love them all. The 250 has been in service since 97! Can anyone here say that? Good Luck!


----------



## malibudandy (May 20, 2009)

I don't understand the statement that reverse flow UFG's are mechanical filters, and regular UFG's are not. In the case of reverse flow, the crud gets caught in the intake sponge of the power head (I dislike the sight of cruddy sponges, and dislike even more reaching in to remove them for cleaning) . For regular flow, the crud gets caught in the gravel(which I remove with vacuuming).

For Karin, she does not have a very large tank (45 gal) and only 3 cichlids. Using the UFG as another filtration system in addition to an HOB or canister makes perfect sense. Like R-DUB said, two filters are better than one. And she has already bought them, and running the powerheads are cheap. The powerheads, by the way, increase the water movement in the tank by a lot.

In my experience, there is NO WAY that the water will be clearer with just one HOB (even a large one like the Emperor 400) or a single canister (unless it's very big one running close to two hundred bucks) than with the UFG as a supplement. I appreciate EHEIMs and RENAs as much as the next person, but the "lowly" UFG still has a place in fishkeeping, IMO.


----------



## under_control (Jan 9, 2008)

Reverse UGF's are a decent mech filter because you should run a sponge on the powerhead.

and it is U G F NOT UFG.

No one has even asked what 3 cichlids she has. 3 oscars in a 45 is different that 3 bolivian rams.

Size is not the only factor in a good canister. Quality of filtration is far more important than quantity. Further, most cichlids benefit from sand as a substrate(it greatly improve natural behavior) and that will NOT work with Cichlids.

Anotherreason that UGFs aren't great for cichlids is that they tend to dig. If the substrate is not equal in depth, then the water will only pull through the shallow sections.

The worst part of UGF filters is the amount of mulm that collects UNDER the filter plates. Short of tearing everything down, there is no way to clean them out.


----------



## malibudandy (May 20, 2009)

OK. UGF. Whatever.

Read what I wrote about the sponge on the powerhead inlet regarding mechanical filtration. Draw a diagram of the flow, use basic science, and figure where the crud ends up for both the flows.

You are right about very fine sand - UGF won't work. But crushed gravel, etc, no problem. BTW, if you get very fine sand into a magnum, with the impeller on the BOTTOM, or any canister, watch out.

If the fish really dig like craze, you can use eggcrate under the gravel, so there's no way they can get to the filter plate. What I do is to use a UGF a little smaller than the area of my tank, and place all the caves (that's where they dig) outside the confines of the UGF.

If you vacuum regularly, there is little mulm under the plates. It is also not true that short of tearing the tank down that you cannot clean it. My LFS uses exclusively UGFs (that way, they don't have a central filtration system vulnerable to disease spreading). They told me that all they do every few months is hook up a wet/dry shop vac to the UGF outlet, and give it a good suck. BTW, they have the healthiest fish in all the stores that I know.

All the points you raise about weaknesses of UGFs have been written about ad nauseum in the controversy. I am writing about my own experience. I just like the crystal clear water in my Cichlid tank, with very good parameters, too. And I like to vacuum and do water changes. If you don't, BTW, you have no business putting 3 honking big Oscars in a 46 gallon.


----------



## R-DUB (Jun 3, 2007)

I disagree with some of what under-control says. Size is not the only factor? True. BUT its really hard to beat a MAGNUM. Heres why
Cost MAG- $115 pro system Ehiem- $169 large classic
GPH MAG- 350gph Ehiem- 264 gph
filter sleeve $11.29 3pak Coarse pad-11.99 fine- 11.99 per pad. 
still need ehfimech @ 10.49

Thats quite a bit of difference in prices! And Mag still pumps more water. I still have money left over to buy a micron cartridge too. Also does the ehiems gurantee NO-BYPASS?? Or does the water have a chance to slide past the pads? This filter is also not easy to clean or change media. The ehiem classic is a bit bigger. (NOT MUCH)It also only has one chamber for media of your choice. Like the Mag. Does gph matter?? Yeah it does.


----------



## under_control (Jan 9, 2008)

But when the quality of filtered water is not the same, it is irrelevant. People tend to defend what they've sunk a lot of money into, up until the point where they replace it with a better solution. My mag drive pump hooked to 3 whole house water filters(which totals 107 dollars, and filters are about 2 dollars a piece...) performs better than a mag 350 any day.


----------



## R-DUB (Jun 3, 2007)

How can the quality of the water be better if it is by-passing the pads? If the water is forced through the media and through some sort of filter pad whats the dif? Ehiems has a better pad? As far as sinking alot of money the Mag is the cheapest on the market. I dont understand your argument. Also your custom built filter probably does perform way better. I have a homemade trickle filter that was about $20 and it outperforms my mag too. That does not change the fact that a mag is (for the money) the best filter out there period>>


----------



## planenut007 (Mar 21, 2009)

Under control, you mentioned you have 3 whole house units. Are they in series on one pump, if so are you using progressivly finer media (cartridges) ?
I have one running at the moment on a quit one 4000, along with my sterilizer on a "Y" with a valve to coltrol flow throught the UV.
Was thinking of adding 1 or 2 more whole house units to the mix.
Aggree 100%, for the money you can not beat these things for polishing, hands down simply the best system for crystal clear water.


----------



## under_control (Jan 9, 2008)

I run with carbon then 20 micron then 5 micron. I won't advocate full time carbon for everyone, but because it is so cheap with these units(about 6 bucks every 3 months) there is no reason for me not to. I do understand that HITH may be linked to carbon use, but there is little research to PROVE this.



R-DUB said:


> That does not change the fact that a mag is (for the money) the best filter out there period>>


Your argument is completely subjective. Completely. It isn't even worth arguing any more.


----------



## R-DUB (Jun 3, 2007)

Facts and only facts. GPH,price and no by-pass are not subjective. The same could also be said about your argument; which does not have facts.


----------



## under_control (Jan 9, 2008)

Facts:

*Only the micron filter has no bypass. THe filter sock does have bypass. 
*Bottom impeller canisters are prone to problems, including sucking up sand, gravel, and pretty much anything. This causes damage. Baaaad.
*The Quick Disconnects that come with the 350 are sub par. At best.
*The plastic housing and piping gets brittle in just a few years. I've owned 3 of these filters. From one made in the early 90's to one made in 2003. They all had this problem.
*The micron filter clogs too quick.
*The filter sock/basket only allow a sub par filter combo.
*Noisy. God Awful noisy. Cavitation in the impeller housing and the construction design in general make this very prone to being noisy.
*Poor closure design. The metal clips inevitably bend, causing a poor, leaky seal.
*The design of the "pieces" with the seals for the impeller housing and top seals leads to bypass and leakage. Plus those seals don't last nearly long enough. 

I'm not sure why you're proving to be such a fan boy. Saying that it is hands down the best filter is nuts. Eheim freaks don't go this crazy over their filters. There is no comparing this filter to even an xp3, and definitely a c-360. You can pull a c-360 off of ebay for 120. There goes your argument there...

I'm far from the only one who feels this way. The average rating is 6.74, here on C-F. http://www.cichlid-forum.com/reviews/vi ... php?id=895


----------

