# Decision on a new tank size



## jtquint (Nov 21, 2017)

Hi all,
I am fairly new to Cichlids but not fish keeping. I am in a little bit of a time crunch with Black Friday coming up and some potential deals. I initially was going to get a 75g and start a high population African cichlid tank (types to be determined when I educate myself a bit more) but now am debating between a 90, 120, and 125. I think the 150 would be a bit much for me. My main question is length of a tank the most important or the width for surface area and aquascape when it comes to cichlid keeping. I have room for up to a 72" tank so just curious what you all think and any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!


----------



## CeeJay (Aug 16, 2016)

Bigger is always better. But you need to figure out what fish you want, some will be fine in a 75 but the bigger haps will find your 150 small. Check out the fish and see what interest you and then build the tank around them.


----------



## Cyphound (Oct 20, 2014)

Regardless of what fish you decide to home in the tank bigger is better. Depending on the height of the stand, maintenance can be a pain requiring a stool or small ladder
A 90 is a taller version of a 75 and I think a 150 is a taller version of a 125.


----------



## Trademark (Dec 31, 2016)

I think the Length of the tank is more important than width. But like the others said, bigger is better.


----------



## caldwelldaniel26 (Jun 11, 2017)

It really just depends on what type of fish you're keeping. The length is more important with most Mbuna that don't exceed 6" but some of the bigger guys can require a 24" wide tank. Heck just get a 180 and be done with it lol. The bigger tanks are really a lot easier to maintain.


----------



## jtquint (Nov 21, 2017)

Thanks all for the replies..... So far the length of the 125 is the leading candidate....


----------



## noddy (Nov 20, 2006)

If it were me, I would get the biggest one that IO could fit in the space. If a 72" tank will work then you might as well get one that's 24' deep and at least 24" tall.
I opted for a 210g (72 x 24 x 29"). Like others have said, it all depends on the fish you want to keep. The bigger the tank, the more available species.
After trying to keep B. Tricotl in my 210g a couple of times, I wish I would have went bigger.


----------



## The Morning (Nov 22, 2017)

I just finished setting up a 150. For the same footprint as the 125 it is a great tank. One thing to consider is the extra height of the tank as it does make a difference. At 6 feet tall I find that I still need a stool to be able to reach the bottom of the 150.


----------



## gillmanjr (Jan 27, 2017)

I'll say this: get the biggest tank you can fit. If you get something smaller you will end up regretting it and almost immediately wanting something bigger. Obviously you'll still enjoy whatever you get, but you'll always be thinking "I could have something bigger". Thats just my 2 cents.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Another vote for length. I would not do more than 125G for a 72" tank though...I don't like the look of the height and the shorter tank is easier to maintain. Just a preference, but wanted to give another viewpoint.


----------



## Steve C (Oct 9, 2011)

File me in under the longer 72" tank group as well  Although I'm just the opposite of DJR, I personally LOVE a 30" tall tank that is 72". Then again I'm 6'5" so it's easier for me to reach into a deep tank. As others mentioned when it comes to size always go as big as you can fit & afford because bigger tanks give you more stock options, the higher water volume makes it easier to keep healthy and perimeters where they need to be. And they just plain look great!


----------



## BlueSunshine (Jul 13, 2014)

72" tank all the way!!!


----------



## joselepiu (Jul 22, 2017)

i would say the 72" short...

unless you are 6'5" or more... lol...

you are going to be reaching in there at the very least once a week, and that is after is well established...

just something else to think about...

:fish: :roll: :? :-? :fish:


----------



## jtquint (Nov 21, 2017)

Yeah...... I am just a shade under 5'8"...... so I am thinking of short (height not length) just for ease of maintenance (So the 125g 72") Maybe though I can convince my kids to Mission Impossible down into a larger tank??? 
Thanks to all who have weighed in!


----------



## caldwelldaniel26 (Jun 11, 2017)

jtquint said:


> Yeah...... I am just a shade under 5'8"...... so I am thinking of short (height not length) just for ease of maintenance (So the 125g 72") Maybe though I can convince my kids to Mission Impossible down into a larger tank???
> Thanks to all who have weighed in!


I'm 5'-10" and I just use one of those folding utility ladders with three steps to reach the bottom of my 180 gallon tank. I like having the extra height and width but I still wish I'd have gotten a 300 gallon lol.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I'm tall, but even with the short tank...lowering those wet 40 pound rocks gently to the glass bottom...I still stand on the first step of a ladder for safety.

Pros and cons either way. I have not found water volume to be a huge issue for quality...my 33G just as easy as the 125G.

I choose by appearance so it all depends on which you like.


----------



## Steve C (Oct 9, 2011)

DJRansome said:


> I have not found water volume to be a huge issue for quality...my 33G just as easy as the 125G.


It's not so much that more water volume is _better_ quality I wasn't implying that at all. It's more that a higher amount of water is more forgiving which is nice for piece of mind. Things go wrong in a 33g and you don't have long to act before fish health is affected. Things go wrong in a 125g and the fish aren't at risk as quickly as they are in the smaller tank. For people such as myself that tend to do a lot of trips (fishing) through the year where I am gone anywhere from 2-14 days at a time the higher water volume helps to keep things from getting out of hand in a hurry if say a fish was to die while I was away for a few days.


----------



## joselepiu (Jul 22, 2017)

jtquint said:


> Maybe though I can convince my kids to Mission Impossible down into a larger tank???


that should be interest to see... 8) 8) 8) ... lol...



caldwelldaniel26 said:


> I'm 5'-10" and I just use one of those folding utility ladders with three steps to reach the bottom of my 180 gallon tank.


i think that is little risky... ladders for some unknown reason hate me...   :roll: :?



caldwelldaniel26 said:


> I still wish I'd have gotten a 300 gallon lol.


that one will be even better for a ""mission impossible"" kind of thing... lol... :fish:  8) :lol:  :thumb: :fish:


----------



## caldwelldaniel26 (Jun 11, 2017)

Steve C said:


> DJRansome said:
> 
> 
> > I have not found water volume to be a huge issue for quality...my 33G just as easy as the 125G.
> ...


This is also what I was referring to.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I agree with both caldwelldaniel26 and Steve C about larger volume being more forgiving. My point was...I've never had a quality problem with 10, 20, 33 etc. so this does not push me to choose the larger volume.


----------

