8' vs 10' 365 gallon tank - let me know what you think

kilmca

Member
Just looking for some opinions, reasons to go with one tank over the other. I'm trying to choose one of the following two tanks. Both tanks are approximately 365 gallons.

120" long x 32" wide x 22" tall or
96" long x 40" wide x 22" tall - might be able to go up to 44" wide without a price increase.

Pros for 96" long tank:
costs around $1000 less
Would not need additional MH lighting, I have enough from current tank.

Pros for 120" long tank:
10' tank would be awesome

Any advice or personal experience with tanks of this size would be great!

Thanks, Calvin
 
40" wide will be real nice for rock work/ corals. 10' will be real nice for fish especially large ones (tangs) I would go with the 10 hands down if you have the $ and the space.
 
If you used regular lumenarcs, 4 bulbs would fit over the 120. You would actually save a bulb on the 8 footer since you would only need 3. Personally, I'd go the longer one :).
 
That's a tough problem you've got there. I like the 96" x 40"....but I'll add a caviat that says that you have to design that for viewing from at least 1 of the sides. (and the front, of course)

If you are going for the "window" look, then I'll change my vote to the 10 foot because unless you can see in from the side I don't think you see a huge difference between 32" and 40" width.
 
Maybe it's just me.. But would a 120", 10' tank that is only 22" tall look kind of outta proportion. I would go at least 30" tall on a 10' long tank
 
Thanks for your input. Here are some more details.

I only have a 5'-10" ceiling above where the tank is located because of hvac ducts. I want a stand that is about 34" tall so I have room for my sump/refugium below. That only gives me about 14" above the tank. I plan on using my PFO HQI pendants over the next tank, i'll just have to get one more if I go with the 10' tank. I've attached the picture of my current tank and the configuration of the space. My plan is to remove/move the column and reinforce the beam. I will center the new tank on the 16' space and place new columns at each end of the tank. If I go with the 10' tank that will give me about 3' on each side of the tank, if I go with the 8' tank i'll have 4' on either side of the tank. The space at each end of the tank will be seats for viewing the tank from the side.

Since my utility room is behind the tank I will be able to access the tank from the front and back.

I have space for either tank. My current tank is a 200 gallon tank that is 96" long x 24" wide x 20" tall and I think it looks fine. I don't know how you would reach the bottom of a 30" deep tank that is 32" wide. Hope this info clears up some of my design issues and will also help you understand the space I have to work with.

Thanks

253081524RL998390880.jpg
 
The reason I mentioned a taller tank was not only proportional aesthetics. But also the more natural look of SPS being able to grow. The fish also have room to swim across the top of the reef...

Here are a couple of our in wall 500 96 x 36 x 36. myself I love the way the extra height works..

Happy Reefing


DSCN2077.jpg


before.jpg
 
ricks,

That tank is amazing. I do like the look of the SPS corals but do not have much experience with them. I understand the reason for the extra depth. I think I would be able to increase the depth of the tank to 24" or maybe even 26" but that would be the maximum. I can increase my ceiling height by a couple of inches by removing the drywall between the hvac duct and lights.

I see that tank is barebottom, have you had a tank with a sandben before? If you have had both which one do you prefer and why? I have always had a sandbed but I am considering a barebottom tank.

Thanks for your input, it's much appreciated.
 
Kilmca,

In 20 years of reefkeeping, I have kept both sand and barebottom. Not to start a debate on your thread. But I would never have a sand bottom system, my refugium doesn't even have sand... The kind of flow needed to keep and GROW SPS. Would been impossible for me. Since that picture was taken I've added (2) more 6201, making (6) total. Along with a Hammerhead on CL and (4) 100 iwaki's on seashirls. That's works out to about 25,000 GPH without head loss figured in, 20,000? Anyway I would have one heck of a sand storm.. I just find maintenance much easier with BB. And I think my coral growth speaks for itself..

Happy Reefing
 
ricks,

Actually I just purchased (2) used Tuzne 6201 that I will be using in the next tank. I already have (2) 6101 and (2) 6055 in my 200. I plan on using a return pump with a flowrate of 4500 gph. That should put me at around 23,500 gph before losses, maybe around 17,000 gph after losses? I believe i'm going to have a hard time keeping sand in place with all that flow.

I spoke with the tank manufacturer today and I found out I can go up to 48" wide without increasing the cost much. So I'm now leaning towards a 96" long x 48" wide x 24" tall, 475 gallon tank. I like the idea of a 10' tank but i'm limited to 32" wide. Also it costs about $1000 more. That's a good chunk of change.
 
I my opinion you can never have enough flow... The trick is indirect, without blowing the tissue off the coral.. Why can't you go 48" wide with 10'??

After all it's only money.. I saw a comment once. The only difference between a paper shedder and a reef tank, is the shedder won't pop your GFCI...

Happy Reefing
 
I think it all depends on each persons tank. I personally would rather have a proportionally longer tank as it makes the tank appear longer than normal which gives a nice look to it. I love the look of tanks that look like they stretch on forever. Also, you don't need 400 watt bulbs on a 22" depth. That is a savings of around 750 watts. That can result in a decent yearly savings on electricity.

Mine is 24" depth and I personally wouldn't go deeper. I have enough of a hard time being 6-3 reaching to the bottom. I run a alot of flow through my tank with a mixed SB with no issues. The growth is extremely high as well. My tort went from a 3" frag to a 12" colony in a year and my slimer went from 3" to an almost 2' colony in diameter in about 18 months. This isn't even taking into effect caps and other corals.

I'd definetly would like to see a progression thread.
 
ricks,

The 10' tank cannot be over 32" wide because I would have to move my hot water heater to the other side of the utlility room. Not really an option. The 8' tank misses the hot water heater by about 6".

jay24k,

I too am around 6'-3" and can imagine it's difficult to reach anything at the bottom of a 30" deep tank. I know people do it becauase i've seen alot of tanks 30" deep and deeper on RC. I'm restricted to a max depth of 24" so I don't have a choice of going deeper.

I agree, a 10' tank would be nice, i'm still considering it. I actually even priced out a 12' tank but the cost for that tank was just silly. The 12' tank cost is so great because there are only a few acrylic manufactures that put out 12' sheets and they charge a premium for the sheets. It was around $7k including shipping. That's more than double the cost of the 8' tank.

I will be posting a progression thread when I decide on what I'm doing. I'm engineer and will be taking the proffesional engineer licensing exam in April so I have some studying to do for the next 2 months. The tank build will begin shortly after I take the test in April.

Thanks for responding!
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11797348#post11797348 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gliebig
I would prefer the 8ft tank. Length is cool, but depth is the shiznit.

By depth do you mean front to back or bottom to top?

I assume you mean front to back but just wanted to clarify.
 
WOW, those colonies are huge! For you, I say get the taller tank. You need some head-room to support the height of those trees.
 
Back
Top