2eheim2217 vs FX5

[Geral]

Anwer ur question i forget i have 2 aquaclear 110
And one 2217 right now

[Geral]

Very good info bedlamer
I will use sand as sustrate
How much of that 607 with media are truth?
Who else have experience with both?

Thanks to all

[supadave]

FX5 ....all day...everyday !!

OP only listen to reviews from people who have owned both of the filters being compared . Don't listen to people who say..."I've heard"....."I read"....."I know somebody".......because all they are doing is passing on info. based on what they read or heard . I currently have 2260......2262.....FX5.......2217....Rena XP3......Eheim 2026.....etc. Two 2217 will not out perform the FX5 mechanically . They will probably out perform the FX5 biologically . The 2260 / 2262 does not out perform the Fx5 mechanically either . There is a couple of test on the net and they all state that the Fx5 was better mechanically . I have used both on a 125 gallon with the same fish and the FX5 kept the tank cleaner . So basically, it will boil down to what you want more . Mechanical filtration or biological filtration . As far as sand getting into the impeller ........check with a member by the name of Autonet . He is running two FX5s in a closed loop with no problems at all . I personally have been running my two FX5s since 2008 without a single issue . Don't get me wrong....both filters are great .......I just feel that 1 FX5 will out perform 2-2217s mechanically . But if your focus is more on biological filtration.......then the 2-2217 will be superior .

[aquabee]

Lol! Awesome post Harry, and very helpful too.

[Bedlamer]

Thank you Ek for summing that up nicely. I've asked folks similar questions before, and got good answers, just not as complete as yours. Geral, I can't really answer your poll as I don't have any hands on experience. My first canister filter--a 2217 is according to UPS somewhere in Illinois ATM. I can give you some raw data and general thoughts for you to chew on.

Prices based on best I could find in about 20 mins worth of snooping around on the net (not including taxes if applicable, or shipping if charged). Flow figures on filters are usually a bit pie in the sky over rated from real world figures. Fluval gives a no-media and with media (brand new media, probably less than crammed full) flow rate, Eheim lists just one flow rate.

2 X Eheim2217. (Figures are total for both combined)
Flow 528 gph. Media volume 3.2 gallons. Wattage consumed 40 watts. Price $259.98

Fluval FX5.
Flow 925/607 gph. Media Volume 1.5 gallons. Wattage consumed 48 watts. Price $239.99

Eheim 2262
900 gph. Media volume 4.8 gallons. Wattage consumed 80 watts. Price $399.99

Other thoughts. The Fluval has a nifty double return and black, rather than Eheim hideous green tubing. You can dye tubing black or replace the Eheim parts with optional black ones. Two filters are usually better than one to provide multiplely redundant life support systems—but as you already have 2 AC 110s running that point is moot. I see your poll is set to run for a month—and you already have AC 110s—so I am assuming you have a little wiggle room before you add more filtration. If you really would like a 2262 maybe consider waiting an extra month to save up the $140-160 price difference? Those Eheims are supposed to last for decades with minimal repair. If you get one it’ll probably be with you the remainder of your fish keeping hobby. That being said the 2 X 2217s are a maybe better bang for the buck, and with 2 intakes and outputs would mix up the water better—but once again you have the 2 AC 110s so it makes little difference in your case.

I’ve been told by a regular poster here who has used both FX5s and 2262s on the same tank that they would use the FX5 as all mechanical and the 2262 as all biological. I’ll let them expand on that if they wish to.

It would help subsequent posters to form an opinion tell us if you are intending to use a very fine or sand substrate—due to as Ek pointed out the FX5s difficultly in dealing with that.

I’m interested in comments others might have in comparing how difficult the various canisters are to restart, and how hard it is to crack them open and service them. Also interested in the convenience (if any) of the basket system in the FX5 vs. just piling media in loose with pad disks and or with media bags in the Eheims, vs. reduction in flow and less efficient water paths through the system.

EDIT--Geez it took me so long to write the above everyone else had it covered before I posted it--lol.

[Geral]

+1 on that cause. The hob will be pure mechanical

[eklikewhoa]

Another thing...

I like the idea of splitting your beneficial bacteria amongst 2 filters instead of "keeping all your eggs in one basket", with 1 filter. This way you can alternate when you do filter cleanings and not have to worry about problems.

[Geral]

i bet u he will give us his point on this Sunny where are u.............

[aquabee]

Everyone said it all. Easier to maintain and clean out, and better flow. I have the 2260 on my 105 which I absolutely love for all the same reasons I like the 2217, especially the flow part. Oh and there's the giant volume of it too. :)

That said, I've never had an FX5. But I've had other Fluval canisters and I must say I like Eheim better in general for that.

Sunny has both, he'd be a good one to chime in right about... now!

[Geral]

bee why u go for the 2217 ?

wanna know why would u like them rather than the fx5

[aquabee]

Voted for the 2-2217 as well!

[eklikewhoa]

I think what makes them popular is the price in comparison to a 2260.

But IME, it would take 2 to equal that of a 2260

[Geral]

mmmm that sound true let see what other people say about it, eheim botton to top work better but what make the FX5 be so popular an work for many other setup's i never had experience with trays only with a cascade, i dont like to be cleaning canister every week rather 2+ weeks lazy 2 lol

[Kiko]

TWO 2217 FTW!!!... its easier to maintain and clean!!!

[eklikewhoa]

I just seen the voting poll... vote cast.