Re- thinking tank..

Discussion in 'New To The Hobby' started by mattb, Aug 21, 2009.

to remove this notice and enjoy 3reef content with less ads. 3reef membership is free.

  1. mattb

    mattb Astrea Snail

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    Southeastern PA
    Hi again everyone!
    I introduced myelf here a week ago and am a newby with saltwater. I was expecting my new Red Sea Max 130d the next day when I first posted. Well, it came via Roadway Trucking and I ran to the road to help unload it ( took the day off) and after getting it all off and opening the box...the glass was smashed..not too happy.:cry:
    Anyway, so as not to bore you all anymore my question is this: I am not going to go with that same tank again. They are refunding my money, so is it better to go 75 gal or 90 for my first tank? I have read that bigger tanks are actually easier to run.

    Thank you all for any ideas or info.
    Matt
     
  2. Click Here!

  3. defdad

    defdad Fire Shrimp

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    302
    Those are good sizes to start. If you want a reef tank, I would go with the one that is the lowest in height. Deep tanks require more powerful lighting for corals. If it is for fish only, I would go with the one that is wider so fish have more swimming room.
     
  4. iLLwiLL

    iLLwiLL Sailfin Tang

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,715
    Location:
    Central FL
    That sucks about the red sea, what a crappy day off work.

    I would take a standard 75 over a 90, its the same footprint with less height for your lights to try and penetrate through. If your worried about extra water volume you can always add that in with the sump.

    ~Will.
     
  5. PharmrJohn

    PharmrJohn The Dude

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,622
    Location:
    Shelton, Washington
    I have run both a 75 and a 90g. They have the same foot print. The only difference is an extra six inches of height. And I LOVE IT. It really improves viewing. However....and this is a big however. The difference between the 75 and the 90 is substantial. You would think an extra 15 gallons wouldn't make much difference, but it does. The glass needs to be thicker with a 90. You can pick up a new 75 for about $150. A new 90 will run you about $250 to $300. I got mine for about $275. I would buy it new. I would not go used on your main tank. Anything else....it's OK.....but the main tank, IMO, needs to be in tip top shape. And an extra $150 to $200 that you have to spend to get a new tank of that size is worth it.
     
  6. mattb

    mattb Astrea Snail

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    Southeastern PA
    Yeah Will, it was a dandy day...lol. I never realized that the extra 15 gal made such a big difference, but it makes sense. Since I'm ona budget I guess the 75 seems the way to go. Wet/dry trickle filter system with it seem best?
    Matt
     
  7. PharmrJohn

    PharmrJohn The Dude

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,622
    Location:
    Shelton, Washington
    To respond to the difference in height between the two and the relative effect on coral growth, I don't think it makes much difference at all.

    The water doesn't go all the way to the top of the tank....there is one inch. A two inch sand bed takes away another, well, two inches. So you have to have 21 inches to the bottom of the tank. I have an 8x54W Tek T5 array over my tank. My corals are mostly on the rock, with some that require lower light requirements (or no light requirement) down toward (or on) the sandbed.

    T5's are just as good to about the 18 inch mark. Between 18 and 24 inches, there is some decrease in PAR but not enough to make a substantial difference, and you would only be going down to the 21 inch level anyway. A tank deeper than 24 inches needs MH IMO.

    So I would still go with the 90. Like I said, I have had both, and the 90 is far superior to the 75 IMHO. Bigtime.
     
  8. Click Here!

  9. PackLeader

    PackLeader Giant Squid

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,716
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Go as big as you can. Period. And who said it had to be a 90 standard? Get a 90 long ;)

    And, to make the best of this for you, I think this was a blessing in disguise. I have never been fond of the "kits". Under powered filtration, under powered flow, and underpowered lighting all for the same price if not more than a far superior system you could build of the same size. ;) And besides, getting everything together is half the fun!
     
  10. PharmrJohn

    PharmrJohn The Dude

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,622
    Location:
    Shelton, Washington
    The wet/dry system is a great nitrate reduction method. So is a fuge. With the 75 or 90, you can have, easily, a 20g long under the DT. If you have side access with your stand, I would do a 30g standard. More room....and extra six inches in length. The 20g long is 30" long. The 30g is 36".
     
  11. GoToSleep

    GoToSleep Torch Coral

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,170
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    It's not the size of a man's tank, it's the motion in his ocean that matters.

    sorry, I couldn't resist but on a serious note, BIGGER really is better. If your budget will support it and you have the room, a 6' tank like a 125g is a great size.
     
  12. mattb

    mattb Astrea Snail

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    Southeastern PA
    Funny you say that PackLeader. I actually think it is a blessing in disguise too. After reading more and talking to experienced people such as yourself and PharmrJohn, I am learning how to do it right the first time. Thanks again for all the insight!!