# your opinion on the fluval fx6



## hi-revs (Nov 3, 2010)

First of all, i have a 125g tabk that i keep more or less overstocked. (I know this isnt the best. But its running fine for years in terms of water perameters)
Im currently running two xp4 filters on it as well as 3 powerheads for circulation.
Currently in both the filters combined, i have 5 full trays of bio rings/ seachem matrix. Two trays of mechanical ( one tray in each filter). And one tray i use to run purigen.


Ive had these filters for a few years now and i love them. Easy on maintain and quiet operations.
But due to high amounts of bioload, im thinking of taking out one of the xp4 and putting in the fx6.

My question- would i notice any huge improvements with adding the fx6? Where would the most noticeable difference be seen?
Also, where would i be able to find one with the best price? I havent really seen these units locally.

Thanks!


----------



## April (Apr 21, 2010)

I am doing a group order if I get enough orders. See sponsor section. But..ice never used one so get suggestions from
Members of a worthwhile idea or not. 


Sent by tapatalk in north Burnaby


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

Fx6 I can only speak of second hand, my friends overstocked tank 135g he runs an fx5 and fx6, that plus a single jebao is all he needs. 

Fx5 I can speak on I run and have run for years on my over stocked 85g african cichlid tank. Keeps my water moving, quiet , trouble free. My params are on point with only light w/c. I've had people tell me my water is gin clear. 

Only negative I see is the hoses aren't up to my grade of quality. They will need to be replaced with better aftermarket or even stock fluval hoses but they can be pricey. Other than that they are trouble free compared to other types from what I read about peoples troubles on bca. 

Bottom line I'm in need of a cannister for my new 85 gallon bullit tank and I'll be buying and fx. My friend got his from Rogers aquatics in surrey for $380 off the shelf. I have also heard petsmart carries it for $350.

Try and support our sponsors first and I can't comment on any improvements you may get as all my canisters are fluval and my dads tank are fluval cans and two other tank friends are fluval only. Not one problem for anybody.


----------



## hi-revs (Nov 3, 2010)

Thanks for your feedback Vancitycam.

I just would like to know if its worth it for me to swap out one of my xp4 in place for the fx6.
Its $400 i donr mind keeping depending on the benefits.


----------



## jbyoung00008 (May 16, 2011)

I have the fx5 and Rena xp4. I prefer the rena. I had an Xp3 before that. The fx5 is very heavy. Carrying it to my garage sink is a pain and its 15ft away. The trays are awkward and oversized. Cleaning this monster is a chore. Im sure the rena holds the same amount of media if not more. Taking the motor/impeller out to clean is also a pain. The side drain is useless, unless you have it elevated. Its huge 

Remove 1 of the black sponges out of the rena you will get better flow, even 2. The rena sponges trap more debris than the fx5/6 sponges

I don't have a fx6 but they are similar. Things I like about the fx5 are the splitting output and it does have good flow. 

For $$ value Im happy with my Rena and always have been.


----------



## Rockman (May 19, 2013)

I've got an FX6. I like it so far (only had it since the end of july... cleaned it once so far). Seems pretty well built. The fittings make it easy to take apart. Comes with a pretty good amount of media; and the trays seem pretty well designed (minimal bypass). Keeps the water pretty clear too (handles the waste from a 12" pleco quite nicely). Never owned an XP4 though; so I can't offer a comparison. Although I suspect you won't see a huge amount of difference swapping out two XP4's for an FX6.



jbyoung00008 said:


> The fx5 is very heavy. Carrying it to my garage sink is a pain and its 15ft away. The trays are awkward and oversized. Cleaning this monster is a chore. Im sure the rena holds the same amount of media if not more. Taking the motor/impeller out to clean is also a pain. The side drain is useless, unless you have it elevated. Its huge


Well... to be fair to the fluval: you're doing it wrong. The side drain works perfectly if you tilt the bucket initally so that the hose isn't elevated higher than the top of the canister (after that it works by siphon). You do have to empty the bucket once in the middle though if you want it to drain more than halfway (with a standard 5g bucket); so elevating it a bit would be better (or use a shallower, wider bucket). Once the canister is mostly drained it's easier to move than smaller canister (without a drain). The impeller housing is a bit of a pain though... you're right about that (there are 4 screws that need to be undone to pop the impeller out).


----------



## Sidius (Mar 25, 2012)

I'm not sure that the benefits would outway the cost in your situation. Keep in mind that I've never owned either a Rena or a Fluval canister (I'm an eheim guy and use both the 2080 and 2075 on my 180g overstocked African Cichlid tank). The FX5 and/or FX6 are good filters from what I've heard and they seem to be very reliable, but the XP4 is also a good filter with more bio media capacity (roughly 8L, I believe) than the FX6 (Roughly 6L of media). In fact, my biggest complaint about the FX series of canisters, is that there isn't enough bio media for how big the filter is. My Eheim 2080 holds double (12L) what the FX6 holds. I have not seen tests comparing the two but I would be willing to bet that with the extra bio media, your XP4 would probably outperform the FX6. 

At the end of the day, If what you're running is working and your water parameters are good, I personally wouldn't change anything. You can't really go wrong with either choice but spending an extra $400 on a filter that probably won't outperform the filter you already have, seems like a bad investment (in my opinion of course).


----------



## charles (Apr 21, 2010)

Actually, the XP4 doesn't hold 8L of bio media. Out of the 4 trays, you need 1 tray for sponges. So if anything, it is 3/4 of 8L. Now the design of the trays. You can't fill the tray to the top. You need to make room for the above tray so it will sits inside the bottom trays. I serious doubt a FX6 will have less bio capacity than a XP4.

But I agree with Sidius. Go with Eheim  I found cleaning a FX5 is a chore. I would rather clean two xp4 than a single FX5.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Apr 21, 2010)

I have an FX5, XP3, and an Eheim 2028 on my 125 planted pleco tank. Here's hopefully my factual observations, although in the interest of full disclosure, I'm wanting to get rid of my FX5 and other filters for a sump for easier maintenance in the not too distant future I hope.

1. FX5 is noisy for me. It's by far the noisiest of all the filters I have, including my Eheim 2078.
2. Heavy. A lot of work to lift the filter out of my stand and drag it to the laundry sink.
3. Pain to clean the impeller as you need to take the pump apart with a screwdriver, leaving a hole in the side of your filter so you can't do it in situ. It's the only filter I use which I don't clean the impeller every time because of it.
4. Sand and gravel can stop the pump because it's in the bottom of the filter. But by the same token, having the pump in the bottom makes this monster easy to prime. Pretty much automatic.
5. 1" hoses are lousy and non-standard so you can't plumb anything inline without changing out all the hoses. Probably doesn't bother most people but for me it matter since this tank is planted and CO2 injected.
6. On average it take me 30 minutes from power off to power on for cleaning the FX5 when it's at most 20 minutes for the rest (including my 2078 which is direct plumbed and on a different floor). My smaller filters like my 2213 or 2075 can be cleaned in 15 minutes or less.

Of all the observations, the noise is the most unacceptable. The tank is behind my office and it's the only filter I can hear inside the cabinet. It's louder than the 2 computers I have running at my desk and one of them is a laptop with a fairly noisy fan.

If I were you, and you're not measuring ammonia, I wouldn't bother with another filter since the bio is handling the ammonia. I would just do more water changes, which you would have to do to transport organic wastes out of the tank anyway. If you must, just get another XP3. It's not my favourite filter, but it's cheap and I like it better than my FX5.


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

Those who find fx a chore need to work smarter not harder. With aqua stop valves and bottom drain you can easily drain before moving if it too heavy but I'd say man up unless you got a condition in that case drain. You can also use your intake hose disconnect with aqua valve to fill buckets for w/c. I also find cleaning the fx easier with the pull handles/rods to remove the trays and big easy foams. 

Maybe taking it apart so much has caused you guys noise but my LEDs make mere noise then my fx I have aragonite too and still quite. Even getting sand sucked up from time to time I see in there

Had a friend leave his tank for months while he was away two fx on a 180g with no maintenance done and returned to find everything operational full flow with good water. 

One other tidbit is for our pond we have Laguna solids handling pumps for uv with same quick connect as fx's. Laguna, Hagen, fluval, Hagen must be something going on quality wise here for tank and pond market domination. 

It's like this cummins-vs-power stoke while the cummins is the best why ? Because it's in mining equipment, generators for industry running 365, 16 cyl twn turbo major power while the powerjoke is found your everyday 1-5t moving vans and nothing more. My grandma with class 5 can get in one of those. Now if you're talking 46t truck and transfers it's got cummins baby no power strokes in site.


----------



## charles (Apr 21, 2010)

The whole thing about a canister is you can do a quick disconnect and remove the filter and clean. The reason why the drainage outlet is there for a reason. The filter is too heavy to move around so they put the drainage out there as an option. They use that as a back frush but no one does that alone to clean the filter. You still have to disconnect the whole R2D2 to do all the cleanning. It is just one extra step you have to take for the motor to drain all the water out.

Which LED makes noise? The only thing that makes noise in an LED fixture might be the fan. I certainly don't hear any complains about LED making too much noise. I have serviced many, I mean many FX5. I think I service more so than anyone here in this forum. They are noise.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Apr 21, 2010)

I deleted my other responses because I think Charles would think it's funnier if I tell him to man up since he's got those skinny little stickman arms! 

Oh and I totally agree. I'm going to cancel my gym membership and get a few more FX5/6's.


----------



## mendoza.inc (Jul 27, 2013)

i myself like the fx5 i got one on my tank also got an xp4 so if u xp filter guys wanna trade for a fx5 il glady do so


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

I got skinny stick arms too that's why I can say man up. Im only 145lbs here ready to go with guys 100lbs+ on me. My personal best is a 240 pounder out cold he wouldn't quit so I wouldn't release he was same height with an over under triangle choke. So I guess maybe to my straw like arms the canister isn't heavy even though I'm small. 

Both filters will do good even what you have is fine so if it ain't broke don't fix it. But don't let an irrelevant thing like "weight" get you down.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Apr 21, 2010)

mendoza.inc said:


> i myself like the fx5 i got one on my tank also got an xp4 so if u xp filter guys wanna trade for a fx5 il glady do so


Not to derail the OP's thread any further, but there are plenty of quality well maintained used FX5's to be had from guys who have gone to sumps or other filters (and of course the other way too, but you're interested in FX5). I know Tony1928 has sold 2 FX5's recently and I will be selling mine along with my 2028 and XP3 when I sump that tank.

Realistically the XP4 doesn't have anywhere the bio or filtration capacity of the FX5 and definitely not the 2080. But it's a very cost effective filter if one doesn't want to spring for an FX5 or other big filter (2080, 2260, etc).

Just to clarify for the OP, there are users here who have also gotten rid of Eheim 2080 to get FX5's because the Eheim had no spare parts and lousy service in North America. Not to mention any names...ahem.....but I know this person cleans his FX5's every week so it can't be as bad as some of us make it out to be.


----------



## April (Apr 21, 2010)

I bet I know who cleans every week...must be some discus guy!
well all I know is every canister ive ever owned ive ruined..and thrown out or sold for whatever. so im no help. no patience and I don't wanna man up! my achey breaky old bones..lol.


----------



## jbyoung00008 (May 16, 2011)

2wheelsx2 said:


> I have an FX5, XP3, and an Eheim 2028 on my 125 planted pleco tank. Here's hopefully my factual observations, although in the interest of full disclosure, I'm wanting to get rid of my FX5 and other filters for a sump for easier maintenance in the not too distant future I hope.
> 
> 1. FX5 is noisy for me. It's by far the noisiest of all the filters I have, including my Eheim 2078.
> 2. Heavy. A lot of work to lift the filter out of my stand and drag it to the laundry sink.
> ...


You hit the nail on the head. I agree with all your comments 

Cam you crack me up. LOL. I thought we were talking simple magnetic motors, not diesel vs diesel. LOL. Having to drain the unit and use buckets is more mess and work. Im tired of spilling water and so is the wife. All I do with my Rena is unlatch hoses, carry to sink. I don't have to open numerous hold down screws, which if 1 strips the unit leaks like crazy. After you pull the massive baskets out now you have to figure out where to put them. More mess!!!! I do water changes with a python not the intake hose although if you do use buckets that a neat way but in a stand like mine that's just more of a mess.


----------



## Sidius (Mar 25, 2012)

charles said:


> Actually, the XP4 doesn't hold 8L of bio media. Out of the 4 trays, you need 1 tray for sponges. So if anything, it is 3/4 of 8L. Now the design of the trays. You can't fill the tray to the top. You need to make room for the above tray so it will sits inside the bottom trays. I serious doubt a FX6 will have less bio capacity than a XP4.
> 
> But I agree with Sidius. Go with Eheim  I found cleaning a FX5 is a chore. I would rather clean two xp4 than a single FX5.


Yes very true, you can't fill the baskets to the top but you don't HAVE to fill a tray with sponges unless you choose to. I don't run any sponges in my eheim's (unless you count the small sponge that comes in the canister around the outtake). I've tried using floss or sponges in them and I find them more of a pain than using that tray for more bio. Extra bio does mean a quicker turnaround for converting ammonia to nitrates, hence my comment about why I think the XP4 could outperform the FX5. The proof comes from the test I added a link to below. Head to Head, the Eheim converted ammonia to nitrates faster than the FX5, even though the Eheim had half the flow rate... why? it has twice the bio media.

REVIEW:Fluval FX5 vs Eheim Pro3 compared


----------



## charles (Apr 21, 2010)

Sidius, if you take the foam out of the FX5 and replace that with bio, the FX5 will have more space. I am just comparing with each filter with its orginal design of use.

Eheim is different. For example, the 2080 has 4 trays. And it has a foam on top of the very top tray so the foam doesn't take over space like the xp does.


----------



## tony1928 (Apr 22, 2010)

OK this is my own personal opinion of the FX5 so please keep that in mind. I agree with everything 2wheelsx2 has posted. I've owned 5 different FX5's over the past few years and they have served me well. For a time I had 4 FX5's running at the same time on my 400. It looked so pretty under the stand all lined up in a row. In hindsight, I should have sumped it and that's actually what I've been working on this year. I like to think of the FX5 is a canister built with a sledgehammer approach. It works, is not particular well made, but does the job. Noise wise, I really notice the silence when I pull the plug on the FX5. I don't notice the same difference when I pull the plug on my Eheim Pro 3. One thing I do hate on the Fx5 is that stupid foam ring system. Wringing those things out is such a pain in the butt. 

To the OP, I think you need to consider what you want the canister to do. If it is to add bio capacity, then by all means, go for it. If the FX6 offers more space for bio, and that's what you need, then do it. For the past few years, I've backed away from using canisters to generate flow and also for large scale mechanical filtration. There's better ways to capture poop. The canisters clog so quickly that if your fish are messy, you'd be cleaning that canister weekly. Is that what anyone really wants to do? Not me. Also spending money on a canister for their flow rating is not a very effective use of money. You'd be much better served buying powerheads to push water. They are way more effective and flexible and likely use way less power than any comparable canister. One last comment is that people often overestimate how much biomedia they need. That's something you have to play with to figure out.


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

See there's too many variables for setups of trays and applications and needs for a filter to make direct comparisons equal or one clear perfect choice.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Apr 21, 2010)

The whole sponges or not debate is a bit complicated as some people choose to use them as bio by rinsing in tank or dechlorinated water. I don't as I think most filters contain enough bio, given the tank's plants and substrate already add a lot of bio. But if the tank is bare-bottomed having more bio could be handy.


----------

