Red Sea Reefer Nano

[madducks42]

We've been thinking about getting a second tank, because why have only one money pit when you can have two, and really like the Red Sea Reefer Nano. We were picking up some things in a LFW this past weekend and while talking to one of the employees there this came up and they said that the Red Sea Reefer Nano was being discontinued and it was just going to be the Red Sea Max Nano because that one sells better. So now we're debating if we should order the Reefer Nano before it's no longer available since we're not fans of the Max model. Haven't been able to find anything about the Reefer model being discontinued though so we're curious if anyone has heard anything like that.

 

[HolisticBear]

We've been thinking about getting a second tank, because why have only one money pit when you can have two, and really like the Red Sea Reefer Nano. We were picking up some things in a LFW this past weekend and while talking to one of the employees there this came up and they said that the Red Sea Reefer Nano was being discontinued and it was just going to be the Red Sea Max Nano because that one sells better. So now we're debating if we should order the Reefer Nano before it's no longer available since we're not fans of the Max model. Haven't been able to find anything about the Reefer model being discontinued though so we're curious if anyone has heard anything like that.

I have not heard about discontinued. Waterbox discontinued their Nano competitor (the 40.1), but that model had an external overflow which makes for a much more usable interior space. You might be able to get one from BRS or elsewhere. Waterbox new model in that size will be a Silver Marine, that had a different overflow (more similar to Red Sea Max).

Having owned the Reefer, I'm more of a fan of the Max than the Reefer on the Nano sizes and maybe 170 sizes. The reason is that's there is very very little cabinet space. If you need everything to fit in the cabinet, it's a real challenge. It's much easier on the Max models. Also, the overflow on the reefer Nano/170 is the same size as on their larger tanks, and it really takes up alot of interior space and I don't like the look of it. But there are lots of people in love with the Reefer Nano, you might email Red Sea to get the official word (they are fast with email replies).

 

[nero0762]

...
Having owned the Reefer, I'm more of a fan of the Max than the Reefer on the Nano sizes and maybe 170 sizes. The reason is that's there is very very little cabinet space. If you need everything to fit in the cabinet, it's a real challenge. It's much easier on the Max models. Also, the overflow on the reefer Nano/170 is the same size as on their larger tanks, and it really takes up alot of interior space and I don't like the look of it. But there are lots of people in love with the Reefer Nano, you might email Red Sea to get the official word (they are fast with email replies).

Our preference for the Reefer Nano (the OP is my SO) over the Max was for few reasons:
First, there's more "viewing space" on the Reefer. The display tank on the Max is 16.5 gal vs 21 on the Reefer, so more than 25% larger. And I feel like you have more "viewing" surface area with the Reefer. Seeing the black panel on the side of the Max (the side of the overflow) is less appealing to me.
Second, while its a tiny sump, there's an actual sump in the Reefer. It _seems_ like working on stuff would be easier here than in the back of the tank. The point about zero storage in the cabinet is valid. But, for us, we've got our Reefer 425 in the next room, and we'll likely store stuff there, or in a nearby closet.
Finally, sort of related to the first point, the total volume is larger on the Reefer, 28 vs 20gal, so I'm assuming that will add (slightly) to the stability of water parameters.
All that said, I'd love to hear from anyone with first-hand experience on either of these tanks.

 

[HolisticBear]

Our preference for the Reefer Nano (the OP is my SO) over the Max was for few reasons:
First, there's more "viewing space" on the Reefer. The display tank on the Max is 16.5 gal vs 21 on the Reefer, so more than 25% larger. And I feel like you have more "viewing" surface area with the Reefer. Seeing the black panel on the side of the Max (the side of the overflow) is less appealing to me.
Second, while its a tiny sump, there's an actual sump in the Reefer. It _seems_ like working on stuff would be easier here than in the back of the tank. The point about zero storage in the cabinet is valid. But, for us, we've got our Reefer 425 in the next room, and we'll likely store stuff there, or in a nearby closet.
Finally, sort of related to the first point, the total volume is larger on the Reefer, 28 vs 20gal, so I'm assuming that will add (slightly) to the stability of water parameters.
All that said, I'd love to hear from anyone with first-hand experience on either of these tanks.

Having the 170, I find the 4" inches on either side of overflow effectively dead space. It's fine for a MP10, but doesn't feel like a larger tank, it's effectively the same usable space as a Max. I also think the single piece max overflow is a more cohesive look than the distracting reefer overflow in the middle. That is me. With the Max, I can put a large ATO + Dosing container + controller in the cabinet and it can work. With the Nano or 170, I need an ikea cabinet on the side.

I replacing the reefer with a custom tank that has external overflows, because I just don't like the Red Sea Reefer overflows on small tanks. Great value for the money and there are some beautiful ones here on R2R, lots of nano + 170 build threads.