# New tank...Fluval FX5 or sump system?



## Kliman01 (Jun 29, 2010)

Hey there,

I'm new here...I just picked up a 125G "long" tank for a steal from a friend of mine. Came with an FX5 filter, as well as a 20G "hospital tank" and a ton of other extras. After doing some reading, I like the idea of using a sump system rather than the FX5 for the following reasons:

- Filter media appears to be WAY cheaper, and in the long run that's a ton of money
- I like the idea of adding 20-40G of volume to the system (I'd probably get another 20G and make everything redundant if I did a sump)
- I like that I can put the heaters and other accessories in the sump tanks and not have to see them

Are there any big reasons to just stick with the FX5? Just to eliminate "but you already own it, so it's a waste of money", I'll probably end up using it in another tank elsewhere in the house...unless the sump thing ends up working really really well.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## rarefaction (Aug 6, 2009)

Kliman01 said:


> Are there any big reasons to just stick with the FX5?


#1: Noise. Silence can be achieved but it does not come easy. If you like to tinker then a sump is for you.

#2: The canister will do a better job of mechanical filteration and can draw water from deeper in the tank. The sump will do better at bio, and oxygenation, and draw from the top... and increase capacity... and maintain easier.... and so forth...
So use both 

#3: Just use poly-fil from any fabric store as your filter media. Much cheaper, and does a great job. :thumb:


----------



## fox (Jun 11, 2009)

I am not sure a cannister is better at mechanical filtration over a sump. I think where a can performs best is with bio filtration. Any sump designed lacking in mechanical filtration is poorly designed. I use 100 micron socks on our sumps and it looks like the fish are floating on air, though the UV might have something to do with that.

A sump is not for everyone while a can is easily considered plug and play. I have no experience with HOB overflows as our two sumped tanks are drilled but I have read they can be made silent also. A can needs service every month or three while a sump will need to be tended to twice a week or so depending on stock and feeding habits.

Cost wise a sump can be cheaper and require less time overall when compared to a can but a well made cannister will give very many years of dependable and quiet service. Put that in the scales and then decide.


----------



## trunk (Jun 25, 2010)

I see you mentioned putting the heater in the sump. Is this advisable in a plastic sump? Is it advisable in any sump? Will it over heat the water? I realize I am not providing much info here but thought it merited consideration.


----------



## John27 (Jun 6, 2010)

Trunk,

Heating the sump is absolutely doable, and if the plastic (acrylic?) sump can handle the water temp, it ought to be able to handle the heater provided it doesn't come in contact with the walls of the sump.


----------



## jchild40 (Mar 20, 2010)

I'm heating my water in a rubbermaid sump. No issue; I don't allow the heater to touch the plastic. I've used the suction cups it came with to hold it in place.


----------



## paradigmsk8er (Apr 13, 2009)

TBH once the tank is established and the heat is balanced, the heater when it comes on is a pretty low temp anyways.

I run a sump. With a HOB overflow. It has taken a lot of tweaking and some trickling noise is still present, but I am still happy.


----------



## Rick_Lindsey (Aug 26, 2002)

paradigmsk8er said:


> TBH once the tank is established and the heat is balanced, the heater when it comes on is a pretty low temp anyways.


I don't think it's a problem anyways, but I'm pretty sure that while it's not instantaneous, every time the heater turns on it's going to get just as hot as if the water was cold... it just won't stay on nearly as long.

I think in the end it comes down to noise and tinker-factor... if you're not looking for silence, and you like to tinker, then a sump is the hands-down winner. If you don't like to tinker, are a light sleeper, and this tank is in your bedroom... then a good can is the clear winner.

I'm planning to do a sump system on a rather smallish tank just because it's appealingly silly (I have to find my glass drills, bulkheads, pump, etc. first... they're in a box somewhere, but I bought them 2 moves ago. I was going to do it with a 29, but given the current petco sale i think i'll buy a 40br for the project instead).

If you can get the intake set up such that most of the debris makes it into the sump (whether through creative overflow techniques or something like a koralia to blow it around), then you can get better water quality with a sump than a canister, if you change your mechanical filtration frequently. I figure swapping a poly-pad once a week isn't that onerous, and it will actually reduce nitrates vs. a canister, since you're removing nitrogen from the system by getting rid of the organic stuff before it decays.

-Rick (the armchair aquarist, who as usual offers a grain of salt since he hasn't actually used any of the systems in question, and is basing his opinion on his own research and the occasional collision of brain cells within his twisted little mind)

<edit> 
<fineprint>
disclaimer : all claims of "better water quality" and "reduced nitrates" are assuming equivalent water change regimes, and are not based on scientific study. results are not typical, ymmv, etc etc.
<fineprint>
</edit>


----------



## Kliman01 (Jun 29, 2010)

Wow! Thanks for the replies everybody!
Silence is actually pretty important for me on this tank, as it's going to be in my TV room, and I don't really want to hear water rushing while I watch movies...

I had heard things about using the quilt batting (aka floss) as filter media. Is that just in place of the foam inserts in the FX5, or do I just fill the whole thing? I've got a bunch of Eheim "bio media" that looks like little smooth rocks that I can use as well.

I also read that a lot of people use 2 of the FX5 filters in a tank this size. The thing is rated for up to 400G, so is that not a TON of overkill?

Thanks again, everybody! Way to feel a newbie feel welcome...


----------



## KaiserSousay (Nov 2, 2008)

*The thing is rated for up to 400G*

Pure advertising, and not even truth in advertising.
They give you max flow rates based on an empty can.
The rate diminishes as you add media.
If you have some Eheim substrat pro, I would certainly use it.
Good stuff.
Using batting as filter material works quite well. Canister or sump, this stuff is a great gunk trapper and does a good job as a bio media as well.
If I was you, I would run the FX5 and hold off on the sump.
Not saying forget about using a sump, but not right away.
Start a sump info file. Save links to materials, styles, overflow designs, noise killers..
You get the idea, eh?
Maybe at some point you want to get involved with sumps/overflows. You will have a solid information base to guide you through construction and use.
Good luck.


----------



## rarefaction (Aug 6, 2009)

fox said:


> I am not sure a cannister is better at mechanical filtration over a sump. I think where a can performs best is with bio filtration. Any sump designed lacking in mechanical filtration is poorly designed.


I guess this is where the debate begins. It is my understanding that the higher the oxygen levels in the water the better the bacteria perform. That being said, the water running into my can is drawn from the deeper levels of the tank and returned to the deeper levels. The filtered water doesn't meet the air until it reaches the surface or flows out the overflow box. Therefore the oxygen levels "should" be higher in the bio ball area of the sump than in the canister right?

I use 100% poly-fil in my can, nothing else. The intention was more fine mechanical filtration deeper in the water column. (not all waste just floats to the top to be filtered out in my tanks...) This does not mean my sump is poorly designed, heck you helped me design it *fox*  :roll:

I'm just sharing my experience running both on one tank... And I likes my tank clean :fish:


----------



## Rick_Lindsey (Aug 26, 2002)

rarefaction said:


> I guess this is where the debate begins...
> I use 100% poly-fil in my can, nothing else. The intention was more fine mechanical filtration deeper in the water column...


I think in the "classic" debate of HOB vs can, common wisdom gives the nod to HOB on mechanical filtration due to it's higher flow rate, and gives the nod to the can on bio filtration, due to it's massive media content (thus the typical combination of one of each).

Also, until you replace/clean the mechanical filtration media, a mechanical filter will make the water look better, but will not affect the parameters... HOB's and Sumps offer the ability to change/clean the mechanical media more frequently than cans do.

A can packed with mechanical media takes advantage of the massive media content to do a fine job of filtering out particulates (definatey better than most HOBs, and likely better than a sump too), the others allow the option of removing said particulates from the system rather than simply trapping them for the next couple months.

Now, with all that said... with a proper water change routine it's all moot, and you goes with what you likes, and your parameters are good regardless of your filter choice .

-Rick (the armchair aquarist, who is lazy, but is often willing to do extra work in order to be lazy, thus his interest in a sump system with a wet/dry for massive bio filtration and an easily replaceable mechanical filter pad to reduce the nitrate buildup between water changes)


----------

