Any Love for Aquamax Skimmers?

[A sea K]

Thinking of upgrading my current Reef Octopus Prime 150 int. Looking closely at either the Aquamax ConeS Q-2 or the FC-180, leaning more towards the FC-180 but they both are rated the same and use the same Sicce Shark 2.0 pump. Anyone out there with first hand experience with either model or the Shark pump itself.
TIA, Chris

 

[Foothill Corals]

I have used a ConeS-CO2 for 5 years on my 93 it is a little over size for this tank but has worked great. In fact so well I purchased another and also use one on my new 180 and it is awesome on this tank. They are great performers for the price. What I really like about them is that they are the least finicky / best performing skimmer I have ever used (been in this hobby for 20 years) including my ATB. Never have to tinker with adjustments,never have overflows after changing filtersocks or such. That said they are built with somewhat thin material it feels cheap next to a high priced skimmer but performs just as good, just don't over tighten the collection cup.

 

[Foothill Corals]

DP

 

[ReeferBean]

I have an Aquamaxx CO-5... skims great. Mine as the Shark (Sicce). No problems. Plus Marine Depots customer service is great.

 

[A sea K]

Thanks for the feedback, A little oversize is exactly what I'm trying to achieve. Do you happen to know what the difference is between the SQ-2 and the S-2?

 

[Foothill Corals]

Thanks for the feedback, A little oversize is exactly what I'm trying to achieve. Do you happen to know what the difference is between the SQ-2 and the S-2?

Not sure.

ConeS-CO2 = external pump
ConeS Q-2 = internal pump (space saver)

 

[A sea K]

OK good. I favor the external pump myself, i'll have to look and see if they have the FC model with an external pump and check the footprint if they do. Skimmer compartment is a tad small so I may have to stick with the space saver design anyway.

 

[SomethingfishyPKNY]

Thinking of upgrading my current Reef Octopus Prime 150 int. Looking closely at either the Aquamax ConeS Q-2 or the FC-180, leaning more towards the FC-180 but they both are rated the same and use the same Sicce Shark 2.0 pump. Anyone out there with first hand experience with either model or the Shark pump itself.
TIA, Chris

I have a q3 and absolutely love it!!!

 

[A sea K]

Well according to the specs the ext pump is too big by 1/2" so that keeps my current choices right where they are.

I have a q3 and absolutely love it!!!

Well that one is definately too big, good to know your happy with it though.

 

[PookieGV]

I have a fc-120 for my new build. I Was not looking for “the best” just workable, reliable pump, and easy to tune. I actually went a tiny bit undersized hoping for stability.

 

[A sea K]

I have a q3 and absolutely love it!!!

Out of curiosity, what size system are you running?

 

[BoSalman]

I'm running a Q-3 on my 120G total volume and it does an amazing job!

 

[A sea K]

I'm running a Q-3 on my 120G total volume and it does an amazing job!

I'm afraid that may be too much of a stretch for me. I'm at 80 gal DT with a 40 BR sump so I would estimate a total volume probably around 85-90 gal.

 

[SomethingfishyPKNY]

I'm running a Q-3 on my 120G total volume and it does an amazing job!

Total system volume is around 275. That includes main dt, fuge, sump, and 2 grow out/ frag tanks

 

[SomethingfishyPKNY]

Out of curiosity, what size system are you running?

Total system volume is around 275. That includes main dt, fuge, sump, and 2 grow out/ frag tanks

 

[Foothill Corals]

For a 80 gal i would get the CO-1 it will perform much better than a -2, a -3 is just way too big to be consistent on that tank. I know everyone likes oversize skimmers but it really not the best way to go. A smaller skimmer can actually remove more in a lot of cases. Too big the skimmer will just stop skimming until the tank builds up enough nutrients to fill the larger neck again, a smaller one just keeps skimming all the time.

Also do not include your sump volume when calculating skimmer size. It does not have bioload itself it is irreverent.

 

[A sea K]

For a 80 gal i would get the CO-1 it will perform much better than a -2, a -3 is just way too big to be consistent on that tank. I know everyone likes oversize skimmers but it really not the best way to go. A smaller skimmer can actually remove more in a lot of cases. Too big the skimmer will just stop skimming until the tank builds up enough nutrients to fill the larger neck again, a smaller one just keeps skimming all the time.

Also do not include your sump volume when calculating skimmer size. It does not have bioload itself it is irreverent.

Comparing the specs the CO-1 looks to be less capable than what I have now (RO prime 150int) even though the rating says it is slightly higher. Looking at body dimensions, reaction chamber area, height and air draw all indicate my current skimmer is more. With that said my current skimmer works full time and I dont feel its getting all the DO from my system as it is being produced. Do you really think the SQ-2 to be that much more than I what I have now? I ask because I feel my system will benefit from a slightly larger skimmer but also agree on not wanting to cross into the too big category. I had previously considered going either vertex 180i or nyos 160, after more consideration I determined they were both likely too large.

 

[Foothill Corals]

I do not think anyone can really answer that every tank is different. It is all dependent on the amount organic load vs consumers vs other export methods.

There are tanks out there that would benefit from having a larger skimmer while there are others that would run better with out a skimmer at all.

 

[A sea K]

Yes tough call indeed. Thank you for all your input though, much appreciated.

 

[blstravler]

Yes tough call indeed. Thank you for all your input though, much appreciated.

How did the skimmer work out? Looking at an Aqua max for my new set up. They get good reviews from most.