Jestersix

Standard 100 Ga

patchin

patchin

Supporting Member
BARcard
I'm contemplating either getting a standard 100 ga tank, redoing my existing tank, or quitting. Not happy with our 50 ga tank. What positive and negative aspects are there to a 5 foot long tank? I know flow is a challenge. I would be hoping to light it with two 175 mh with good reflectors. Please relay your experiences.
 
Bigger is "always" better Steve :) .. I say go for it.... I don't like 5' 100G tank. It's too long and too narrow. I like it wide. 48x24x24 is a nice size. 2x250W and couple T5/VHO are good to keep anything.
 
The 5 foot 100g is only 18" front to back. Kinda of cramped for arranging the rockwork. Ok for a fish only tank.

I really like the 4 foot 120g for tanks around that size. 24" front to back makes a big difference.

Works nicely for lighting too. Figure on 24x24 area for each mh.
 
Yeah I agree that depth is important. It makes the tank much more natural. I hope you don't call it quits. I think you'll have a blast getting a new tank plus I owe you some frags from before.
 
I got the 6 foot long 100g tank! 18" front to back and top to bottom. Now the top to bottom height is nice because lighting doesn't need to be as strong, however yeah 18" front to back limits your rockwork, and more importantly your powerhead placement to get good flow. Now you can get good flow no problem, expensive solutions (Vortech) fits seamlessly in with a width issue, or other mass flow/low pressure devices work fine as well Tunze, Seio, MJmod, Koralia (although I'd probably suggest more than 2 of the later ones). Just as I said you have to be careful of your rockwork so you don't have places where you impede flow from going length wise. Trust me I've had nothing but experience with that 18" width & longer tanks, first large one was 72x18x24, now I have a 60x18x24, and a 72x18x18.

I would further add to Phorman's suggestion of the 120, that 24" depth makes the tank look huge compared to any 18" tank, sure the length isn't there but that is not usually an issue with tanks.
 
FWIW Steve, I've been considering getting a 36x24x24 (since I don't have a lot of space where my current tank is) or a 48x24x24 to go in our living room. I've looked around a lot and the nx24x24 tanks give you the most flexibility.
 
I have a 4x2x2 but I haven't built the stand yet. I did do the rock work all ready though, it's nearly aquascaped all the way (built pillars).
 
I'm basically a cheap guy. I'd much rather run 175s compared to 250s, so I'd rather stick to 20 in or shorter. I bought a 40x16x 20 wide a while back. Seemed like a good size at the time. I kinda wish it was 48 long. My present tank is 20 in tall with a 3-4 dsb, so if I go bare bottomed, the usable space would be about the same and the lightingswould be "stronger". Although T would rather have a longer tank. Opinions?
 
If you buy those 15000k Iwaski bulbs @ 175 you should be able to deal with 24" depth.. but then again those are not cheap bulbs $80 a piece or so I think.
 
Just bought one from Steve in Guerneville, while we were at the cabin. I like it with actinics. Without the actinics, might be too white,but probably acceptable
 
I think it's best to go with what you and T like. For me I don't like tank that is too long and too narrow or too wide and too short. They look weird to me. I had a 100G (48x24x20) before and I just didn't like it. If you like long tank, see if you can find something like 60x20x20 ... 2"-4" make a big different.
 
Yeah what your preference is should come over what our opinions on what "looks good", I'm just expressing that you do get limited in rock work being away from walls with 18". But who knows, maybe if you have 24" width you'll say that's too little and you need 30 or 36" :D
 
I really need to stop reading threads about new tanks. At home I've got a long empty wall, a strong urge, and little time or money. :- Good luck with yours, though, patchin!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top