Upgrading tank. Need suggestions

  • Thread starter Thread starter kozzy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None

75 gallon or 90 gallon?


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

kozzy

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
283
Reaction score
41
Location
Vancouver
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hi, new to the website. I currently have a 50 gallon and will be moving in a couple months so I'm hoping to upgrade to something bigger. I need suggestions on what size aquarium I should upgrade to based on the stocking of the aquarium. I'm currently pretty overstocked. I have a small rectangular trigger and a small blue tang along with a clown fish. There is also two eels in there. I do not have a sump. I only have a canister filter that works only up to 75 gallons.(will be upgrading that). A u.v sterilizer. A hang on back protein skimmer. I am probably thinking to get a 90 gallon. Would you recommend a sump? For fish I want a sorta aggressive tank along with some more colourful fish. I will not be keeping corals.
 
if you want a four foot tank, I would go for a 120. that extra six inches is great for rock placement. you probably don't want to hear this, but any four foot tank is too small for a trigger and/or a blue tang. canisters can be more harmful because they become nitrate factories unless they are cleaned often. I run one on occasion with only carbon because I have lot's of leather coral. uv's are mostly useless in sw. your live rock is your filter. a sump is the best option, but you can go sumpless.
 
I've got a 90g all-in-one. Same dimension as a 120 but the sump is built in back like a jbj. I'd sell it for 450 tank and stand. Buyer responsible for shipping.
 
if you want a four foot tank, I would go for a 120. that extra six inches is great for rock placement. you probably don't want to hear this, but any four foot tank is too small for a trigger and/or a blue tang. canisters can be more harmful because they become nitrate factories unless they are cleaned often. I run one on occasion with only carbon because I have lot's of leather coral. uv's are mostly useless in sw. your live rock is your filter. a sump is the best option, but you can go sumpless.
I know it's too small. They are pretty tiny and theve been ding fine for quite a while and we will be moving soon so they hopefully should have a bigger tank. Is there a certain type of canister filter that would do good or a sump is best. I bought the sterilizer because I was having a Ich problem
 
I've got a 90g all-in-one. Same dimension as a 120 but the sump is built in back like a jbj. I'd sell it for 450 tank and stand. Buyer responsible for shipping.
Where did you buy this tank. Not interested in the sump under the tank. Are you saying you want to sell the tank
 
Edit: Didn't notice that it was only 75VS90
I voted for the 90 but if you have space and can afford a 150 I believe it would allow yuo much more in terms of fish choices....
 
Edit: Didn't notice that it was only 75VS90
I voted for the 90 but if you have space and can afford a 150 I believe it would allow yuo much more in terms of fish choices....
Do you know how long the 90 gallons are normally.
 
A 90 is also a 4ft tank. Mine is 4x2x2 like a 120 but is all built in the back allowing 90 in the display. Yes I'd sell it. I am also moving and need rid of it. I replied to your pm.
 
Regarding whether you should have a sump; absolutely yes. I wouldn't even run a nano without one. If you can swing it, go with the 120- its a nice sized chunk of water.
 
If you go with the 120 I would suggest going with the 150 instead. It still has the 48x24 footprint. If you could go with a 72" 180 it would be a better fit for the fish you already have.
 
I have a 120 (48x24x24). the 150 is six inches more in height. the problem is it's that much harder to reach the bottom for maintenance, coral placement, etc. plus it will not allow for any more fish. it's the surface area, not water volume that dictates the biotope. as I said, a sump is best, but not a must no matter what some say. here is my tank. maybe not the best looking but two years any everything is healthy. NO sump because of severe back issues. hob skimmer, and 150 lbs of live rock.

DSC_4887_0701_edited-1.jpg
 
I have a 120 (48x24x24). the 150 is six inches more in height. the problem is it's that much harder to reach the bottom for maintenance, coral placement, etc. plus it will not allow for any more fish. it's the surface area, not water volume that dictates the biotope. as I said, a sump is best, but not a must no matter what some say. here is my tank. maybe not the best looking but two years any everything is healthy. NO sump because of severe back issues. hob skimmer, and 150 lbs of live rock.

DSC_4887_0701_edited-1.jpg
That looks amazing! I have a hob skimmer too. What Type of filtration do you use. My tank has all the cords and tubes coming into the tank where's all yours if you have no sump?
 
live rock is my filtration. my heater is hidden behind the rocks. skimmer and powerheads are the only things hanging in the tank. I do run a canister on occasion when I frag my softies but only with carbon.
 
I always recommend a sump for added water volume and a place to house additional filtration, plus other equipment (heaters, etc). Depending on your stand configuration, you usually have plenty of space to work with, especially with a 4 foot tank.

I'd personally ditch the canister filter (aside from temporary use after water changes, etc - more: http://www.saltwatersmarts.com/mechanical-filtration-marine-aquarium-1469/) and stick with live rock and a skimmer. Speaking of the skimmer, take advantage of sump space and snag one rated for more total volume than you're system. You'll thank yourself later. :)
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%

New Posts

Back
Top