120g vs 125g

[rwb500]

Do you guys think it would be better to have a fowlr in a 6ftx1.5ft 125g or a 4ftx2ft 120g? The 120 is a few inches taller as well.

It would be a tank for tangs as well as a maybe a couple of the smaller more peaceful triggers, and various other smaller fish, and maybe a harlequin tusk. I was thinking that the 2ft width of the 120 would make up for the lack of length because it gives enough room for the tangs to swim in patterns, where the 6ft tank really only gives them one option of going back and forth.

or do fish like the harlequin tusk really need the 6ft length? i just think the 6ft 125 is awkward looking, while the 120 seems much more natural, and it does not appear so huge in the room.

 

[asonitez]

Get the 6 foot tank. Tangs will appreciate the length. I would make caves along the LENGTH of the tank and not back to front. I would definately put rocks high though and keep the raceway clear.

 

[clowntriggerfis]

I would go with the 6ft 125 or if you a 180(6X2X2) would be even better especial for tangs.

 

[DoubleM 10]

120 vs 125 = 5 gallons

 

[jwm2k3]

For the fish you intend to keep, tangs and triggers, the 6 footer is the way to go.

 

[OhYeah]

I like the depth of the 120

 

[armison89]

ive been told that with tangs and similar fish its more about the sq in. of the tank then the total gallons. the 125 is 1296 sq in. and the 120 is 1152 sq in. so with the 125 the fish have 144 more sq in. to swim around.

 

[armison89]

ive been told that with tangs and similar fish its more about the sq in. of the tank then the total gallons. the 125 is 1296 sq in. and the 120 is 1152 sq in. so with the 125 the fish have 144 more sq in. to swim around.

 

[Recty]

Length matters a lot more than height in the aquarium world.

Fish dont swim up and down, up and down, unless they are cramped/bored/unhappy. They calmly swim around lengthwise in a tank though, they will use every bit of horizontal space you can give them.

I had a 210g that was 6' long and 29" tall and that 29" was wasted space. I would have much prefered a 8' long tank that was 18" tall.

 

[viggen]

I do not consider my 210g wasted space, the fish use just about every inch of it & it's lightly stocked. However the fish I have have LOTS of energy, Hawian/Black Durgeon Trigger, Powder Blue tang, Sohal Tang, Passer Angel all use just about every inch of the tank, the Cinamon clown owns a foot square in there

I would also highly suggest skipping the 120/125G & at least consider the 150g with the 180g being preferred, the extra depth is very nice. With tangs, triggers & wanting a tusk (they are usually so whimpy but so cool) they need room & the extra few inches in depth really makes a big difference.

 

[rwb500]

thanks everyone, lots of good opinions.

it seems like of the two the 125 is the better choice, but a 150 or 210 would be an improvement. sorry to say that 125 is the absolute max i would want in my apartment :thumbdown

 

[clowntriggerfis]

That is a good tank size I have a tank very close to it 135(6X1.5X2) and I like it a lot and am happy with it good luck with the tank.

 

[grouper25]

My Scribbled, Blueface, Queen, Flame, Sohal and Aussie Tusk all love the 6 foot length of my 220.....

Do you guys think it would be better to have a fowlr in a 6ftx1.5ft 125g or a 4ftx2ft 120g? The 120 is a few inches taller as well.

It would be a tank for tangs as well as a maybe a couple of the smaller more peaceful triggers, and various other smaller fish, and maybe a harlequin tusk. I was thinking that the 2ft width of the 120 would make up for the lack of length because it gives enough room for the tangs to swim in patterns, where the 6ft tank really only gives them one option of going back and forth.

or do fish like the harlequin tusk really need the 6ft length? i just think the 6ft 125 is awkward looking, while the 120 seems much more natural, and it does not appear so huge in the room.

 

[TitanTV]

Honestly.. I'd go with the depth of the 120 over the length of the 125. But, I'd normally not get Tangs and such in either. Not saying it cannot be done as pleanty do.

My argument for the depth is it allows the fish more security and a larger footprint to swim naturally. While I have a bigger tank than most can fit the 36" depth allows the fish to swim towards the back of the tank and feel more secure. They just seem more natural and can swim freely without having to stop and turn around. I think most fish would be more happy in a 36x36 over a 72x18. Swimming in a circle around a centerpiece of live rock seems to lower their stress and they look more natural than swimming into a corner, turning around and swimming towards another corner.

All of this was based on my own tank and I know most people love/believe in the length over width..but I would beg to wager ask any of the owners of any "DD" deep deminsion tanks and you will see they would never go back to one of those thin 2 foot wide tanks.

Just some thoughts