redearslider.com

So I am curious. Is it just as effective to stack filters? Are two 100 gallon filters just as effective as a single 200 gallon filter?

I currently have a Fluval 406 which is rated for 55 turtle gallons and I have a 55 gallon tank but I want to eventually upgrade to a 75 gallon tank. I am debating on getting a second Fluval 406 versus going for the FX5 (its easier on the wallet since I already have one 406.) I know the FX5 is the uber filter and I would love to have one but the $250 price tag is a big chunk of change.

Suggestions?

Two 406s will work well for a turtle tank. The separation of biological media might have an affect on fish tanks, but it shouldn't matter for your turtles.

papoopeepoo wrote:Two 406s will work well for a turtle tank. The separation of biological media might have an affect on fish tanks, but it shouldn't matter for your turtles.

Just curious how/why it would have an effect on fish?

For a beginner, two sources of biological filtration might be more difficult to maintain than simply one. This is purely presumption, and not based on personal experience.

I would fully intend to have both filters set up with the same media load unless someone can tell me a good reason to set up the secondary filter with a different set up.

If the choice is the Fluval 406 (2x) vs FX5 (1x), I would go with the FX5.

A single XP3 would get the job done as well on a 75G and costs less than a 406.

http://www.petmountain.com/show_product/11442-107524

Its not so much a "choice" so much as it is an economic consideration. Yes I know the FX5 is going to be the best choice. But Lets say its between Two Fluval 406's and one Rena XP4 (XL) Both are equivalent to 100 turtle gallons but is the single canister going to provide better filtration verses the two smaller canisters.

MEandYouPhoto wrote:is the single canister going to provide better filtration verses the two smaller canisters.

It's a ratio of filtration media combined with flow rate and filter's efficiency. Having two 406's on the tank vs a single XP4 on a 75G tank... no significant difference in filtration.
You'll get more flow rate from a pair of 406's, but they are a bypass design and less efficient than the XP4... so those cancel out. A pair of 406's and a XP4 can both hold enough filter media to sufficiently filter a 75G turtle tank.

I will say that I believe it's easier to maintain a single canister over two smaller ones.

Do you already have a second 406 or would you need to purchase one? If you're going to purchase a second one, I'd just get the XP3 that I've linked instead and sell your original 406.

Here is the configuration I was thinking about



What do you mean by Cancel out and bypass design?

The design of a fluval 03/04/05/06 filter is a "bypass design" meaning some water is allowed bypass the filter media as it passes through the filter thus keeping the flow rate of the filter high as the media gets dirty. Non-bypass filters are the exact opposite and are designed so that the water MUST flow through the filtration media each time it passes through the canister. Non-bypass filters are more efficient.

Higher flow rate is generally good in filtration. Moving more water through the filter = cleaner water. 2 x 406's combined will have a higher flow rate of water when compared to a single XP4. However because the XP4 is non-bypass it's more efficient at filtering the water that it does process and It doesn't need as high of a flow rate to filter the same amount of water as a 406. The higher flow rate of the dual 406's vs. more efficient design of the non-bypass XP4 would be about equal (cancel each other out... no strong advantage to either side).

The two advantages of a single filter are 1. less to maintain and 2. will probably consume less power.


As for your drawings.... that makes sense.

Comparing the Fluval 406 vs the Rena XP XL both economically and filtration-wise, its a no-brainier. Rena XP XL beats the 406 BOTH ways.

Rena XP XL... $148.82 (weird price? )... rated for 265 gallons with a max flow rate of 450 gph.

Fluval 406... $170.07...rated for 100 gallons with a max flow rate of 383 gph.

...and plus if you keep your old Fluval 406 and get the Rena XP XL you'll have no problems with filtration if you get a 100 gallon (or up to, a 120 gallon tank) since the combined rate of filtration is 365 gallons which comes out to 121. turtle gallons.

Rena XP XL and Fluval 406 pricing site: http://www.thatpetplace.com/pet-supplie ... =rena%20XP

Gracie Turts wrote:Comparing the Fluval 406 vs the Rena XP XL both economically and filtration-wise, its a no-brainier. Rena XP XL beats the 406 BOTH ways.

Rena XP XL... $148.82 (weird price? )... rated for 265 gallons with a max flow rate of 450 gph.

Fluval 406... $170.07...rated for 100 gallons with a max flow rate of 383 gph.

...and plus if you keep your old Fluval 406 and get the Rena XP XL you'll have no problems with filtration if you get a 100 gallon (or up to, a 120 gallon tank) since the combined rate of filtration is 365 gallons which comes out to 121. turtle gallons.

Rena XP XL and Fluval 406 pricing site: http://www.thatpetplace.com/pet-supplie ... =rena%20XP

Those are marketing numbers and a bit misleading. The XP XL (formerly XP4) has a flow rate of 450GPH with no media and no head. WITH media it's 190GPH and no head. With head it's less than 190 obviously depending on height.
http://www.rena.net/Products/Product.aspx?ProductID=349
"Waterflow with filtration media and accessories: 190 U.S. GAL/h (719 L/h)"

I agree the XP filters are much better than the fluval 06 filters for turtle environments and the smart money is buys an XP.

VeipaCray wrote:Do you already have a second 406 or would you need to purchase one? If you're going to purchase a second one, I'd just get the XP3 that I've linked instead and sell your original 406.

I was originally looking at getting a second 406 so that I had some uniformity to the look of the tank. Also replacing parts is easier when i only have 1 model to deal with versus two.

Does the FX5 have a bypass design too or is it like the Rena XP4?

@VeipaCray would the Fluval 406 also have a lesser flow rate with media and no head? or do the two filters just work differently?