# New FX6



## matthew1884

The new FX6 is available now for $313.00 from an online retailer. I asked the retailer what the deal with this filter was and what was going to happen to the FX5. He said that the FX5 is being discontinued. The new FX6 comes with the filter media and carbon unlike the FX5. The FX6 also consumes less energy. The main reason he said for the upgrade is that on the FX5 when debris builds up it slows down the pump. The FX6 has a new pump that is designed to handle the pressure so there is less reduction in flow. Also on the FX6 they are rating the GPH based on all the media in the filter. Unlike the FX5 which was rated on just the pump.

I was in the market for a new canister and I will be ordering the FX6 shortly based on the fact that the flow rate is the same, it comes with media, and it save a little bit of energy.


----------



## SnuffyZX

Hey Matt
What online store is selling it? 
Thanks for the INFO
Snuffy


----------



## Deeda

Snuffy, PM sent re: retailer for FX6

Matt, I just checked the new specs on the FX6 on Hagen's website. There are a few differences between the FX5 and FX6 but they are really very similar otherwise. The FX6 uses 7 watts less, comes with media + 2 media bags, a telescoping intake strainer, and hosing to facilitate draining the filter (no length given). There is also a reduction in the maximum length the intake hose can be (6.5 feet) vs. the FX5's (9.8 feet) but no change to the combined length of the intake & output hose length of 16.4 feet. Also, the air purge cycle for the FX6 is now once every 12 hours for 1 minute vs. the FX5's once every 24 hours for 2 minutes.

I also assume that the following parts are not interchangeable since they have different part numbers: Lid fasteners, T-bar handle, motor unit, media baskets, intake strainer & stem, magnetic impeller assembly and purge valve.

Both filters still have a pump output of 925 GPH and a filter circulation of 563 GPH with intake & output hoses of the same length and without media. I'm curious how both filters still have the same gallons per hour rating but there is a difference in the wattage of the pumps. Maybe an impeller redesign?

I'm waiting to hear the reviews on the new and improved version once they start showing up in hobbyists homes.


----------



## 13razorbackfan

If it is true that the new pump will be able to handle debris and other pressures better than the FX5 then that would be AWESOME with a spray bar. All that being said there is no way I would buy this unit for at least two years after its release date so they can work out any bugs.


----------



## fishing12

13razorbackfan said:


> If it is true that the new pump will be able to handle debris and other pressures better than the FX5 then that would be AWESOME with a spray bar. All that being said there is no way I would buy this unit for at least two years after its release date so they can work out any bugs.


I was thinking the same thing. I will buy an FX5 shortly and wait for the reviews to come in on the FX6. The FX5 may not be perfect but at least you know what you are getting at this point.


----------



## twankyfive2

My only gripe with the fx5 is that it seems to trap as much air as it does waste material. I gotta open it up again this weekend and try to reseal everything. Luckily it's pretty easy to get out and open....compared to my 2262.

I like that they put the little reminder dials on the FX6 to remember when to do your cleanings. Although it's the most unnecessary thing in the world, it's kind o cool.


----------



## hawkkerw

Well My history with postings on the FX5 is well known maybe not so much on this forum  . Myself and my FX5 have come to a truce as I have worked to find media which allows flow while catching most of the debris. I truefully hope that Hagen did address what I considered to be flaws with the FX5. I would order one once it has a little more time for it to gain a history. Cant wait for a article comparing the two in real life? I know Kens has them. Does anybody have any idea if all the media parts are the same, foam, etc?


----------



## fishing12

Just wondering if anyone has taken the plunge and installed one of these yet?


----------



## hawkkerw

Well I've been looking. Right now I run 1 FX5 and 2 406's. So I've wondering if the price on the fx5 might come down? My concern is that if you read Fluvals Warranty they pretty much limits it to the motor for the most part. And the FX6 does have a new motor it looks like? Which would you folks feel would be the better setup 1 fx5 with the two 406's I have now. Or buy another fx5's or a FX6 and cut down 1 406? Just my normal debating which with my tank is always a temptation opcorn: . Eheim just needs to drop there price about $100 on some of there models  . I know I just need to get off the Eheim thing already!!!! I find that half the fun.


----------



## noddy

Does anybody have a comparison with the 2262? Media capacity, pump output etc.


----------



## hawkkerw

It looks pretty close with GPH (always anyone's guess) but it looks like the Eheim wins with filter volume bigger filter. Thing is the Eheim like the FX5 has been around awhile so the track record is there. I tell you what on a slightly different subject I bought the Fluval C4 right after it came out and I love I'm(I have two) so easy to clean I mean easier than the Aqua Clear Series. Each part has a quick pullout for replacement point being sometime you got to take a chance.


----------



## Chester B

I was looking at the fluval but ultimately went with an Eheim 2080 for the media capacity and track record. Yes it cost a whole lot more but it works flawlessly and silently.


----------



## fishing12

Below is a review I found on another forum. Not sure if it is okay to post a link to another forum so I copied this guys test results to post here. If the mods take offense to this I apologize in advance. Not my findings at all but found it a rather interesting read.

Manufactuers Specs and Blurbs -

THE FLUVAL FX5

Introduced on Late 2005 the FX5 is Fluval first big cannister filter and contains a number of innovative features
(Specs and product description from the Fluval website)
-50 W
- 3500 L/H (924 U.S. Gal./H)
- Black with orange accents
- 6 foam filter blocks
- For aquariums up to 1500 L (400 U.S. Gal.)
- Additional filter media sold separately
- Height - 17" - 43 cm
- Width - 16" 40.6 cm

The Fluval FX5 is a large capacity, multi-stage external canister filter system. 607 U.S. Gal. (2,300 L)/H, enabling precise management of water conditions for aquariums as large as 400 U.S. Gal. (1,500 L).
A self-priming instant-start system that eliminates the need for manual siphoning.
Unique click-fit AquaStop Valves that regulate water flow, rotate at 55 degree angles and allow for fast set-up and leak-proof maintenance.
A purge valve that allows for partial discharge of debris without needing to move the unit
Multi-directional twin output nozzles to create specific water flows
Fluval FX5 Smart Pump Technology (patent pending) ensures quiet, efficient operation. This self-priming system provides plug-in-and-start convenience.
Lift-out stack of media baskets.

THE EHEIM 2080 PROFESSIONAL 3

Features

* Dual inlets for perfect water circulation
* New self priming principal
* Maintainence and flow rate indicator
* Large pre-filter - extend servicing cycle
* Adjustabe flow rate
* Castor wheels for easy maintanence
* Ideal for Arowana and big fishes

Technical data 2080
Aq. size up to approx l 1200
Pump output approx I/h 1700
Del.head approx Hmax m 2,6
Power consumption W 30
Heater Power W -
Canister volume l 25
Filter volume approx cm3 12 + 1,5 ( pre-filter)
Dimensions HxWxD mm 567 x 330 x 330

***** NOTE the EHEIM Professional 3 range has been EXPANDED by the new 2076 and 2078 models with electroinc pumps putting out 1650 l/ph and 1850 l/ph respectively and featuring electronic self start pumps like the Fluval has ! A 2180 model has also been added with a internal 500w heater !

How we tested:
Neither filter is sold with media included as standard (with the exception of the pads)
In order to make this test fair we used exactly the same high quality media (with the exception of the pads) in both filters. The easiest way to do this (and the way many FX5 owners are going) is to buy the "pack" of media Eheim offer to be sold with the pro 3. This provides exactly the right amount of media for a 2080 filter (and a lot more then enough for a FX5 ..but more on that in a moment) at a substancial discount to buying it seperately and can be purchased seperately from several retailers. The Eheim media is generaly considered the best available and works very well indeed in most brands of filters.
With both Filters filled with media we tested the following.... quoted pump Flow rate vs Actual Flow rate, rated power usage vs actual power usage, noise measured in db at a distance of 1 meter and finaly effectivness of biological and mechanical filtration. We tested the biological filtration by installing the filters on two identical 200cm x60cm x60cm tanks and filled each tank with exactly 700 litres of water. The tanks were both fed a identical dose of pure ammonia @ 4ppm (the correct level for fishless cycling) we then measured the time it took for each filter to have the tank totaly free of amonia and nitrites and producing nitrate at the correct levels. To test mechanical filtration we simply fed the filter intakes submerged tetra bits and then checked the filter baskets to see if any made it through the layers of foam. This method also served to notify if eirther of the filters had a area of significent bypass for mechanical filtration.
The next post will show the general setup impressions and ease of use comparison.


----------



## fishing12

Second part of the review.

SETUP AND EASE OF USE

Setting up eirther one of these is no big deal. We have come a long way from the old Eheim buckets.

The Eheim is unusualy as it has dual imput hoses but this serves well as one can be placed at eirther end of the tank with the spraybar in the middle to improve flow around the tank. The Eheims one piece tap connector is innovative and easy to use if a bit stiff sometimes and it can be difficult to connect the hose to the central connector.The flow rate indicator seems to work well however if you ever left the filter long enough to use use it you shoudl be ashamed of yourself as it takes months and months of heavy use to clog this filter. Another negative with the Eheims set up compared with the Fluval is the seperate baskets they are relitively easy to use but not as easy as the Fluvals one piece set up. The Eheim uses a simple 1 pump priming system that works most of the time with a single pump although we did find ourselves pumping it a few times to get it going now and then and you can actualy see the filter fill up as the cannister body is see through. The filter has wheels so you can remove it for cleaning (beware full of water it weighs a ton) and a tray for placing the pre filter in so you can carry it to a bucket to rinse it out. Its generaly a very easy filter to use in most respects and the fit,finish and fittings scream quality no cheap plastics used and everything is solid. The Eheim is considered the Mercedes Benz of filters and they are built like one ..solid and full of engineering quality that only the Germans seem to be able to do.
The Fluval uses large 25mm hose of a non kink design with seperate taps and this system is possibly the easiest system I've ever seen on a cannister ...just attach the hose ...click in the taps and turn them on and your away it really is that simple. That said for a large filter designed to be used on large tanks the Fluval comes with a bare minimum of hosing just enough to use of a 6x2x2 and your out of luck if you want a bit extra to attach a UV unit or use on a higher then standard tank or cabinet ..come on Fluval ! this amount of hose is absurd ! Another easy to use feature of the FX5 is the central connected media baskets surrounded by the foam (all 25 litres of it !) they hold far less then the Eheim but are so easy to fill and fit back together with the only negetive being that you must remove the whole unti to change the foam on the Fluval where as on the Eheim the foams are changable without removing any baskets. On the upside there is a drain plug (with one of those easy to use click fit taps) on the bottom of the filter so you can drain the water out before moving it which is easier on your back and also offers the ability to use the pump to drain water out of the tank for water changes which is a interesting and innovative feature if you don't need to gravel vac. The Fluval does not have a self priming system per se it must be filled with water manualy before being switched on but there is no sucking on hoses due to its main feature a microprocessor controlled smart pump which when turned on starts the siphon by pumping the water out of the cannister which it seems to do quite well then pausing for 3 mins to allow trapped air to escape.After the priming sequence has finished it restarts itself automaticaly (it can be a long 3 mins waiting for it to restart wondering it its primed itself properly) it also stops itself once per day for 3 mins during normal operation to allow and air that might have been trapped to escape again. Much has been made of this so called "smart pump" and many people have questioned its reliability. We saw no reliability problems with this pump but we cannot say the same of the whole auto prime system. Does this smart pump work? We say "sort of" sometimes it primed itself perfectly but on many occaisions (about 50%) we had to switch it off and start another priming cycle before it was fully primed. The amount of air that stil lescaped after this 2nd priming cycle was substancial enough to say that while certainly a great feature its not foolproof yet.

NOISE
Both filters are quiet by modern standards but the Fluval is a lot noiser then the Eheim measuring out at 43db @ 1 meter vs the Eheims 19db !
The Fluval is quiet but the Eheim is so quiet you have to check it see if its working !

POWER CONSUMPTION
Filters are used 24/7 365 days of the year so power is important. The Eheim is the clear winner here averaging 27w against the Fluvals 51w so the fluval would cost nearly twice as much a year to run as the Eheim.

FLOW RATE
Manufactuers rate their filters by the maximum produced by the pump under ideal conditions without media and things like hoses which isn'tvery helpful in the real world. Most cannisters seem to get less then 50% of their rated flow capacity when used in the real world but both these filters did better then that.
The Fluval showed a flowrate of 1991 litres per hour when full of media and connected which is about 57% of its rated pump capacity of 3500 l/ph but the Eheim did even better giving 1207 litres per hour out of its possible 1700 l/ph for a amazing 71% !
This still gives the Fluval a nearly 800 litres per hour flowrate advantage when used in real life situations but filtration is more then flow alone its also about capacity.

MEDIA CAPACITY
Both filters are huge and hold a lot of media however the Fluval contains 25 litres of foam media around the sides of the baskets and only will hold about 6 litres of bio and mech media in its baskets while the Eheim holds a full 12 litres of bio and mech media and only has about 2 litres of foam.

Will the bigger flow rate of the Fluval make up for its lack of media ?
.

THE FILTRATION TEST

Mechanical filtration
We wanted to test the ability of these filters to remove particals from the water so we emptied a big container of tetrabits near the intakes. The Filters both did a great job catching most of the gunk in their pads but if I had to give to one of them I'd give it to the Fluval that 25 litres of foam really can catch some gunk!

Biological Filtration
The most important function of a filter is its biological filtration capacity and here is the best test for these filters. The clear winner here was the Eheim taking only 11 days to cycle the 700 litres of water from 4ppm of ammonia to Nitrate only vs the FX5's 13 days. It just shows that that extra 6 litres of bio media in the Eheim more then makes up for the 800 litres per hour flow advantage the Fluval has. a 2 day difference is quite significent and its more then we expected.

CONCLUSION A matter of price
While the Eheim is the clear winner in the performance stakes the decision is not clear cut. The Eheim is the better biological performer and has a better % flowrate when full. Its a lot quieter and holds a lot more media and uses less power then the Fluval. So its a no brainer to the Eheim on most areas right? Well no ... The fluval still does a excellent job its a bit easier to set up and it does a slightly better job at mechanical filtration and and here is the big kicker .... IT IS ABOUT HALF THE PRICE OF THE EHEIM So while the Eheim is clearly the better filter here I cannot honestly say its twice as good as the Fluval... issues of reliability and longevity not withstanding. If moneys not a issue its got to be the Eheim but the Fluval is a very good filter and its attractive price is going to win it a lot of fans. As for me personaly I like the Eheim better but I also have 6 FX5's for tanks where I can't justify the cost.
The only real winner here is us ...we have 2 great filters to choose from that both do a great job.

EDIT : MARCH 2008
I've had no less then 5 ...yep 5 out of 6 FX5's exhibit problems with simply stopping all together or clogging after only a couple of weeks resulting in very slow flowrates.
I now have only 1 FX5 in operation out of the original 6.
I have had zero problems or issues with the Eheims.
I must conclude that the Fluvals are not nearly the same quality as the Eheims.


----------



## GTZ

Your review is based on the FX5, not the FX6 and is from 2006.
Incidentally, the FX6 owners manual is online for those that weren't aware.


----------



## fishing12

GTZ said:


> Your review is based on the FX5, not the FX6 and is from 2006.
> Incidentally, the FX6 owners manual is online for those that weren't aware.


 Yes I do realize that. Perhaps I should have started a new thread instead of posting this under the FX6 thread. I just thought it was an interesting read.


----------



## hawkkerw

I'm looking forward to a real life person that can give some more detailed insight between the FX5 and FX6. Not just comparing specs online or downloading a manual but real life one on one. You know I made such a stink about my FX5 when I first got it. After I have taken the time to read more and understand it better I've come to like it. Sorry I was being a hypocrite before but I do still have some issues with the FX5 design but overall it's a decent filter :wink: . My only thing is you don't want one to blow up with your tank running it will pump the whole tank everywhere in no time  . It's a beast of a pump.


----------



## dogsout

I can't really help with detailed comparisons but I can tell you I've had my FX6 for a few weeks now and I love it. I swapped out the Biomax and foam pads (not the huge ones on the sides) that come with it in favour of 6 litres of Siporax. It's keeping my water very clear, and most importantly, keeping the parameters where they should be. I'd say if you already have the FX5 it's probably not worth the upgrade but if you're currently running something poor/small and are in the market for a powerhouse of a filter, then I'd say it's a safe buy. I certainly wouldn't be without mine... so far!


----------



## hawkkerw

Yes, that is a good review but as mentioned above is not the FX6. I have looked at the manual online but a review from someone who has experience with the FX5 comparing hands on running the FX6?


----------



## boomer0113

I am starting up a tank and just got the FX5 from *Vendor Removed*. For new customers you save $15 on your 1st. order, so I got it for $234.99. I thought that sounded like a good price. I am seeing them anywhere from $250 up to over $300.00. Just wondering if those higher prices include the filter media? Do you think I got a good deal? I am starting back after many years away from the hobby so my knowledge at this point is limited.


----------



## markl323

boomer0113 said:


> Just wondering if those higher prices include the filter media?


not necessarily. i would call the store with the lowest price and ask them about the media. if they have it, it is the best deal!


----------



## M1K3L

Hello everyone. Long time forum lurker but this my first post here.
I received the FX6 four days ago. I never owned an FX5.
I bought this filter as a mechanical filter, nitrate reducer and water polisher. 
I do not need it to perform any biological or chemical filtration.

For media I filled the first basket with (from top to bottom) 1" Coarse density filter media, 2" Fine density filter media, 1" Super-fine density filter media. 
The second basket is filled with 250ml of Seachem Purigen. (Contained in a fine media bag)
The third basket is also filled with 250ml of Seachem Purigen. (Contained in a fine media bag)
Underneath that last basket of Purigen, I have a 50 micron felt pad. (not sure this will stay, just testing it and water flow results)

I can afford a reduction in flow rates, as I have far to much with my filters vs tank size, however I have not noticed a meaningful decline yet. 
It's still super clean so I need more time for it to get gunky to give an honest answer.

I'm running the FX6 in conjunction with two Eheim 2217's. The biofiltration is being handled flawlessly by the two Eheims.
I have these on a 75 gallon, bow-front, acrylic aquarium with 30 large male Mumbai Lake Cichlids, Haps and Peacocks. They are all large show fish and make a ton of waste.
My goal was to reduce the Nitrate ppm count and as a result, the amount of water changes I need to make.
Ammonia and Nitrite levels are always at zero but keeping the Nitrate levels under 20-30 ppm is a non-stop job.
I am not trying to eliminate water changes, only lessen them.

Minutes before writing this post, I added the media listed above into the FX6.
I did several big water changes this week, leading up to adding the Seachem Purigen. So this up-coming week will tell me how it's going with the Nitrate levels.
The Seachem Purigen is a new product to me and I am curious how it will turn out.
The additional foam media I added in the first basket, plus the polishing pad have made a fast and wonderful impact.
I can barely see a bright green laser beam pass through the water length wise (48")...it's really clear.

I will happily report back with my results and look forward to answering any question and receiving all feedback.


----------



## M1K3L

^---forgot to add in my post above...
There are 3 or 4 ways I want to try the media in the FX6.
This set-up seemed the least likely of them I would keep, so I am trying it first.
I also wanted to test the gunk build-up with flow rates and this seemed the fastest way.


----------



## M1K3L

boomer0113 said:


> Just wondering if those higher prices include the filter media?


Includes: Fluval FX6 filter, 13.1 ft (4 m) of 1" diameter tubing, purge valve hosing, 3 removable media baskets with mechanical foam inserts (1.5 Gallon or 5.9 Liter total media capacity), Bio-Foam media, BioMax media, Carbon pad, 2 media bags, intake & output assembly, rim connecters, metal clamps, and user manual.


----------



## Iggy Newcastle

Mikel... Is your avatar picture a giant catfish on top of someone?

Hope the FX6 works out for you. Checking it out on the Hagen website, it looks as if not much has changed. I have 2 FX5s. Also, I'm surprised they did not include a spray bar, or offer one as an extra. Missed opportunity IMO.


----------



## M1K3L

Hi Iggy, yes it is but it's not me! I found it doing an image search and it made me chuckle so I added it. 
You're correct about not much changing. I don't understand Hagen's North American marketing strategy at all, as they have done nothing to make new customers want the FX6 version more than the FX5. They have done zilch trying to convince existing FX5 owners to upgrade.
There are some small changes to the FX6. They changed the timer for the air purge, from 2 min shut down every 24 hours on the FX5, to 1 min purge every 12 hours on the FX6.
Slightly less energy consumption for the motor. I do not know if they changed the impeller or stuck in a newer motor to get those results. 
I am with you 100% about the lack of an included spraybar.

So far I am really liking the FX6 as it's preforming extremely well and the Seachem Purigen is fantastic! My Nitrates are climbing at less than half the normal speed with that stuff added. I removed the 50 micron pad as the Purigen seems to micro polish the water by itself...bonus!
Happy Memorial Day


----------



## Iggy Newcastle

I have not gotten a catfish that big, yet. That thing is a monster.

Yea I saw a 10% boost to flow rate and 10% more energy efficient. Some 'maint' dials on the lid. Not enough to buy one just yet. I can get an FX5 for around $250, and an FX6 for $350. The ones I saw online come with media, so that's nice but not worth the extra $. I'm sure they'll come down in price.


----------



## Brentt700

Glad to see someone else using Seachem Purigen and noticing a difference it makes. I have used it for the last year for pretty much the same reasons and it has worked great for me. Great product!


----------



## M1K3L

Thanks Brentt for your feedback about Seachem's Purigen. 
How often do you recharge it with your set-up?


----------



## Brentt700

Mine lasts a good six months before discoloration so usually in those intervals. I personally couldn't see not using it now that I have seen firsthand by testing and by less frequent water changes because of all the test parameters now with it in the filter. My water stays in check for longer periods of time and seems healthier. Now...I am not saying to use it to stop changing water as your regular maintenance. I am just stating what changes it made to my 75 gallon tank and MY PERSONAL maintenance schedules through testings over the last year and a half of using this product.


----------



## rich_t

Resurrection of a dead thread:

I just ordered an FX6 today. I plan to use it to replace my twin Fluval 305 filters on my 120 Gallon tall. I appreciate the input on the Seachem Purigen. I will certainly look into adding that to the FX6. My tank is a tad over populated and I have been having a hard time controlling the nitrate levels.

I do plan on buying a couple of extra Aquastop Valves to use for gravel vacuum purposes. The Aqueon Aquarium Water Changer that I have lacks the suction power to do a good job.


----------



## THunter

Just a heads up. The FX6 Pump assembly WILL work with the older FX5 canister. Bolts right up.

I thought I had a failing pump motor in my FX5 so I ordered a FX6 motor. Bolted right up. Been running it for the last 3 months with no issues. I feel like the flow stays stronger/more consistant than the fx5's.

Turns out the old pump had chunks of Matrix in it and was fine after clearing it. Nice to know I have a backup motor.


----------



## spotmonster

THunter said:


> Just a heads up. The FX6 Pump assembly WILL work with the older FX5 canister. Bolts right up.
> 
> I thought I had a failing pump motor in my FX5 so I ordered a FX6 motor. Bolted right up. Been running it for the last 3 months with no issues. I feel like the flow stays stronger/more consistant than the fx5's.
> 
> Turns out the old pump had chunks of Matrix in it and was fine after clearing it. Nice to know I have a backup motor.


Good to know, thanks for the info!


----------



## miDnIghtEr20C

Thinking of getting one of these for my 140. I'd imagine that would be enough on a 140 right?


----------



## mudbug79

I run two FX6's on my 100 gallon. Water is crystal clear. I know it is overkill, but if/when I move to a bigger tank my filtration is covered.



> Thinking of getting one of these for my 140. I'd imagine that would be enough on a 140 right?


I would think that the FX6 added in with your current filtration would be good enough. With two FX's on my 100 gallon i turn my tank over about 12 times an hour I estimate.


----------



## miDnIghtEr20C

mudbug79 said:


> I run two FX6's on my 100 gallon. Water is crystal clear. I know it is overkill, but if/when I move to a bigger tank my filtration is covered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking of getting one of these for my 140. I'd imagine that would be enough on a 140 right?
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that the FX6 added in with your current filtration would be good enough. With two FX's on my 100 gallon i turn my tank over about 12 times an hour I estimate.
Click to expand...

My other pump is dying.. it's an old little giant water pump that pumps into 2 Nu-Clear canisters that are pains in the ass to clean and get water all over and all this jazz. So I'd kill of that pump for now. Wanted to go sump but I have 4 inches of back and can't find a box that will fit on the back of it. I was just going to go with the 6 for now.. stocking my tank with small juveniles right now. But hmmmmm.. .maybe I can add another smaller one too.


----------

