The Planted Tank Forum banner

Fluval FX5 Canister Filter?

31K views 111 replies 22 participants last post by  shift 
#1 ·
Anyone have one? Are they worth the money? Ordered a new Rena XP Filstar XL and it came in and did not work, thinking about going with the Fluval FX5 Canister Filter instead.
 
#90 · (Edited)
Posting pics by request. Hopefully can be seen clearly.
The split is a reducer coupling from 1" down to 5/8", then to a 5/8" "tee" fitting. The top left of the "tee" goes to my Hydor inline heater, then to an open output in the tank. The top right of the "tee" goes to my PVC spraybar. I chose to split instead of simply reduce the hose size for the Hydor because of my concerns with back pressure on the fluval's pump. I would guess I've got the fluval running at 2/3rd it's maximum potential, and no problems with the pump whatsoever.


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 

Attachments

#91 · (Edited)
I hate to be "that guy" but all those fittings with their reductions and T's and etc are going to dramatically reduce the output of the FX5. This is with an out-of-the-box flow rate of about 600 gph. Generally it's recommended that you have as straight as possible flow from the intake to the output of these filters. This is why you see people making separate reactor loops with their own pumps rather than attaching all of their ancillary components to the filter itself.

If you have to use the FX5 output for your attachments, at least use 1" pipe and as few elbows, T's, Y's, and reducers as possible (IE: none). There are charts and formulas online that can help you understand better if you would like. The manifold idea is pretty and all, but putting it on the FX5 is problematic without supplemental pumping.

Just my .02

Cheers

http://www.hydromatic.com/ResidentialPage_techinfopage_headloss.aspx
 
#93 ·
I hate to be "that guy" but all those fittings with their reductions and T's and etc are going to dramatically reduce the output of the FX5. This is with an out-of-the-box flow rate of about 600 gpm. Generally it's recommended that you have as straight as possible flow from the intake to the output of these filters. This is why you see people making separate reactor loops with their own pumps rather than attaching all of their ancillary components to the filter itself.

If you have to use the FX5 output for your attachments, at least use 1" pipe and as few elbows, T's, Y's, and reducers as possible (IE: none). There are charts and formulas online that can help you understand better if you would like. The manifold idea is pretty and all, but putting it on the FX5 is problematic without supplemental pumping.

Just my .02

Cheers

http://www.hydromatic.com/ResidentialPage_techinfopage_headloss.aspx
The manifold is 1" allowing full flow, even better than using the ribbed hosing that comes with the filter. The path of the 1" section is pretty close to a direct path. The reductions only go to the equipment which allows for better operation, by reducing flow and allowing water to spend more time in the heater and more co2 dissolved.

With that being said, i have noticed since switching to this method more flow than using the original ribbed hosing from the filter. Also a smaller bubble count from the co2. I wouldn't switch back

Just my $.02
 
#92 ·
Glad to have your .02.

If you do it this way (see pic) then there is a 1" bypass available if you open the valves. When i open the bypass (which is usually closed in order to push more water through the devices), I get slightly more flow, but either way, the flow is very strong. The loops are in parallel, which should reduce flow much less than if they were in series.

Totally agree, however: there will be some reduction in flow compared to running straight to and from the tank without any devices. In my experience it is not a large reduction in flow, so there is likely some other problem causing the lack of flow in the OP's situation.
 

Attachments

#94 ·
Ayup, that's the way to do it. You also have the added benefit of the additive diameter of all the pipe combined to offset the 90° angles. It's amazing how little disruption in flow can have on the overall efficiency of a pump! The other damndest thing is that hose barbs are also reducers by virtue of how they're designed. I never quite understood that. So I have a 1" hose barb. It fits in a 1" ID hose. That effectively just made my 1" hose 3/4" now. Huh? Brilliant. And on it goes!
 
#99 ·
When I was testing mine before I installed it, I ran 5 gallons in 54 seconds. That's with the white foam and the center media with ceramic noodles. Stock hose.

=333 gal/hr, wow! you're talking about the fx5 still? a third of their rated 925? how optimistic of them! I'm going to start taking a hard look at this ribbed hosing on my 206 - maybe there's hope after all!
 
#98 ·
There certainly are some VERY ingenious people here and I'm really impressed to see what people are doing. I would rather use 2 canisters and add some power heads in the tank to keep the water moving. The other thing is to under stock the tank and do more water changes. Water changes are the best maintenance you can do for a tank, IMO.
 
#103 ·
When building manifolds, spray bars, outlet nozzles or whatever, the other thing to consider, rather than using a 90 degree elbow to make a 90 degree turn, use two 45 degree elbows together...I cut 1" PVC to the exact length I need and then glue two 45 degree elbows together...it does not slow down the flow like a 90 degree elbow does...yes it takes up a little more room but in the end it creates better flow. I purchased some hose through an industrial hose supplier and it is smooth on the inside and ribbed on the outside with a plastic Helix coil...this stuff is super flexible and the 1" hose has a 1" 180 degree bend radius....Awesome stuff. The stock FX5 hose is flexible but with the ribs it does collect gunk on the inlet side and reduces flow rate over time.

here is the link to the hose I purchased part number...G941W...it is considered Water Suction hose

http://www.greenlinehose.com/_pdf/hose/2.Water.pdf
 
#105 ·
Thanks everyone, all great info. My tank been sitting empty for 4 months. I kinda wish I would have just went with sump like my old setup. That was easy compared to trying to figure out this canister mess. Getting to the point I don't even want to bother with this tank anymore. :(
 
#107 ·
For anyone else interested, this manifold also works on other filters. I wouldnt recommend using it on the ehiem classic filters because they don't have a self prime button.




I must disagree, canister filters are way easier to setup than sumps. However, my experience with them is linking 8 20L on 2 sumps (took 2 weeks to plump and was a PITA)
 
#109 ·
has anyone tried splitting the inlet? so i can have two, to suck debris on both sides of the tank?
 
#110 ·
Funny you ask this because I was going to mention it in my response this morning. I've done it using a "Y" connector on my Eheim. One side had an Eheim surface extractor and the other the Eheim pre-filter syphon. I was very happy with that arrangement for many years in a 100-gallon tank.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top