75 or 120

[small alien]

Greetings my watery friends.

I'm ready to upgrade and I can't decide between a 75 and a 120 (both 4' long). I like the look and added possibilities of the 120. But I'm afraid of the added set-up and and especially maintenance costs.

I finally got an RODI filter and made my first batch of SW (I always get it at my friendly LFS) and, wow, the waste water and wow, the amount of salt (2 1/4 cups of Tunze for a little over 4 gallons of water to get it to .023) and it just got me thinking long term costs more. I would do an 8 bulbs T5 in the 120 instead of the 6 bulb for the 75. So, two more bulbs every time they need changing, etc., etc., etc. Also, electricity, water bill, etc. It's not the set-up cost so much (120 would be $500-800 more to set-up a similar system including additional rock.) It's really the maintenance.

Any thoughts or experiences would be welcome. I'm not a brokety-broke, but I don't want a giant liquid filled money toilet in my living room.

Thanks a lot. I want to move forward and I have the money for the set-up. I need to figure this out!

Thanks, smalls

 

[919]

120 increased size is marginal at best.

 

[919]

120 increased size is marginal at best.

 

[919]

120 increased size is marginal at best.

 

[small alien]

Heard ya the first time, there, 919.

So you're saying not enough bang for the buck to warrant the 120? Thanks.

 

[danrobberg]

I have a 120 and love it. its much taller and wider than a 75. u will never regret a bigger tank but if u get the smaller one u will wake up every day and wish u had the bigger tank.

 

[redfishsc]

Re: 75 or 120

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15353358#post15353358 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by small alien
I don't want a giant liquid filled money toilet in my living room.

Hmm... then you're in the wrong hobby :bum:


Lol, OK, my personal thoughts. The extra water volume is very, very negligible. You'll pay more for additives (calcium, mag, alk, kalk, aminos, yadda yadda) for the extra 40-50 gallons than you will on the water production.


For the salt mix usage, I do water changes based on my bioload. No hard fast calculations, but if I have a light load I normally do 10% per month. Right now I am doing actually around 20% per month (10% every couple of weeks).



For the lighting issue, personally I wouldn't hesitate to put a good 6-tube T5 fixture over a 120. That's PLENTY of light for most softies and LPS. You will be able to grow SPS and clams in the upper half or third of the tank, and even some monti caps, hydnophora, pavona, and other "low light" SPS in the lower half.

The trick is to be sure you have the BEST reflectors you can get. For me that means Icecap reflectors.

LPS will be quite happy with what you have. I have a 20" deep tank with a cheezy 4-tube fixture with an AWFUL single reflector, yet I'm keeping torch, fungia, and several softies on the bottom just fine.

 

[SC Trojan]

imo opinion get the 120! I upgraded to a 75 from a 55 about a year and a half ago and still banging my head over it. I really wish i would of gone with the one 120 simply because of the width. My 75 tall is only 15in deep and simply doesnt allow for much growth of my coral. Regardless of the size difference the cost of running both at there best is not cheap and the for the flexibility of the 120 i would no doubt pay the difference in monthly maintenance. Trust me the extra say 20 bucks a month is well worth the size gain but thats just my 2cents.But then again thats like a 12 pack less a month..... tough one.

 

[Henry Bowman]

The depth (front to back) of the 120 is worth the investment IMHO. This dimension is what most small to medium size tanks lack and makes the 120 worth it.

 

[sikpupy]

If you have the space, go 120, then you have space in the tank to move things around. A 75 at 4ft is still like a 55 for the most part.

 

[noahm]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15353787#post15353787 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Henry Bowman
The depth (front to back) of the 120 is worth the investment IMHO. This dimension is what most small to medium size tanks lack and makes the 120 worth it.

+1 . You will forever wish you had the 2' f/b real estate if you don't go 120. I have a 4' 125 g and wish it was 30" front to back or even 36".

 

[Bambalam]

I have a 75, and wish I had a 120 (we don't have a good place for a larger tank In the long run I think you would be happier with the 120, but that's JMO.

 

[David - Miami]

I think everyone always wants an upgrade. Go as big as feasible and in this case it is 120!
Do not go 75 and regret it.

 

[small alien]

Thanks, everybody. Especially appreciate you taking the time redfishsc. Does everyone think 6 bulbs will be sufficient for the 120? What fixtures use Icecap reflectors? Thanks.

 

[small alien]

sc trojan, you drink good beer!!!

 

[Henry Bowman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15354488#post15354488 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by small alien
Thanks, everybody. Especially appreciate you taking the time redfishsc. Does everyone think 6 bulbs will be sufficient for the 120? What fixtures use Icecap reflectors? Thanks.

Aquactinics Solar Flare (it is a 6 bulb fixture)

Or

ATI 6 bulb fixture.

 

[small alien]

Thank you, sir.

 

[small alien]

Ooo-la-la. That is a pretty fixture. Hmmm. Kinda steep. Is it that much better than a Tek fixture? I mean, I'm sure it is, but... I want to keep lps and softies for the most part. maybe a couple digis.

 

[James77]

120's are great tanks, not huge- but they have great depth. As for T5 lighting, I would look at ATI fixtures only, their performance is the best as far as T5's.

The Sun Power is reasonable, I think $550 for the 6-bulb including the bulbs. If you want full coverage, the 8-bulb ATI Powrmodule is an excellent fixture, and about the same price as the Aquactinics Solar Flare.

 

[James77]

Didn't see your wanting to keep low light coral- 6 bulbs are more than enough. The Tek is decent, but lacks active cooling- which kills bulb performance and life. I would go with the ATI sunpowers.