Is length or width more important in selecting a larger tank

S

Stumped

New member
Hello, sort of just a general question that I'd appreciate answered (hopefully this is a suitable forum to ask). I see a lot of great tanks in this forum and figured it'd be a great place to ask the experts. Eventually I will upgrade, and lately I've been looking at the standard sizes and the availability of the newer DD tanks and it made me wonder a few things.

Lets say I bought a 150DD (which 36x36x27") or a 200DD (which is 48x36x27), would that be better or worse than buying a 150 regular (72x18x27") or 180 regular (72x24x24")? I guess to help better provide a useful answer just presume the stocklist would be something with tangs/reef safe trigger/rabbitfish/etc.

I'm really trying to figure out if that type of stocklist would be more likely to thrive in a DD type tank (where width is a major factor) or if the length of a regular tank would be much better. Really intersted to hear some opinions on this.
 
From an aestetic and functional standpoint, I firmly believe wide (front to back) tanks are far superior for a reef. If possible, 30" wide or more is preferred.

As a general rule, I would not want the tank height to exceed the width.

The only drawback to a wide tank is that adequate flow can be more challenging as widths exceed ~36". This can be overcome.

JMO!
 
There are many who would suggest that most tangs shouldn't be housed long-term in a tank less than 6' long, period.

Out of the sets of dimensions you listed, only the 180 regular seems both appropriate for your stocking intentions, and aesthetically pleasing when aquascaped. High, narrow tanks like the 150 regular are challenging to aquascape.
 
phuzzykins said:
There are many who would suggest that most tangs shouldn't be housed long-term in a tank less than 6' long, period.

Out of the sets of dimensions you listed, only the 180 regular seems both appropriate for your stocking intentions, and aesthetically pleasing when aquascaped. High, narrow tanks like the 150 regular are challenging to aquascape.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input so far guys. The 'stocklist' I mentioned isn't really what I'd be planning to add per se. I'm just trying to figure out what size tank would be ideal for me to upgrade to that would provide me the most options for stocking a few larger/more active fish than my current tank allows. I realize even with a tank in the 150-200g range there are still tons of fish that shouldn't be kept.

I've just been looking at those DD tanks lately and noticed their relatively short length. So I was wondering what kind of drawbacks there are in terms of stocking and if they're not a great option for someone who definitely would like the possiblity of adding a large 'centerpiece' type fish.
 
mine is 72" long, 30" wide, and 24" high. i'd never go any narrower again unless space dictated. plenty of open space towards the front of the tank.
Dave
 
I have a 48"x48"x25" tank and I love the front to back real estate. You can do so much more with your aquascaping. I almost bought a 180 and I am glad I did not. IMO I would go with one of the deep dimension tanks over a 180.

As others I have said I would not go much more than 24" deep since it is difficult to get to the bottom and harder to light
 
I am currently looking at setting up a 150g or 220g reef with a similar stock plan - tangs, chromis, cardinals, etc and softies. From what I have read, and discussions with LFS, the longer tanks are better suited for tangs and angels. Also, I was advised to go at wide as possible, as stated above. Therefore, I am leaning towards the 220g long.
 
i have a standard 180 and a 300 cube. i personally find the greater depth makes it easier to get a nice natural scape. i have 4 tangs in my 48x48x30 tank and they are doing well together. the most important factor in this decision is what you like the look of. best of both worlds would be to do a 72x30x30 tank those are very nicely proportioned.
 
I am fairly tall and long limbed, i have a 96x30x24 and have trouble reaching the back bottom of the tank, where some one always knocks something!! I can't imagine how you fix stuff in a 30 tall tank? Scuba mask?:lolspin:
 
Last edited:
Wider the better!! Plus the taller the tank, the stronger the lights will have to be to reach the bottom. All personal preference though.
 
Length is important for the big swimmers.
Depth is just awesome for a reef.
Height gives the reef a dominating presence, and does a good job of simulating a reef wall when done right.

The best tank I ever owned was 7' long, 36" deep, and 21" high.
If I bought a custom tank again it would be close to that.
 
I would at least do 30 in. wide. I had a 390 ( 96x24x36) and I hated it. The new one is a 450...96x36x30. Best of luck and happy reefing
 
jinjo64 said:
I would at least do 30 in. wide. I had a 390 ( 96x24x36) and I hated it. The new one is a 450...96x36x30. Best of luck and happy reefing
Click to expand...
ehh i had a 270 tats 72 x 24 x 36 reachin the bottom is PITA so i thought 30 is better guess im wrong. so next tank is goin to either be 48 tall or 24 tall 24 i can reach bottom without anythin 48 i can just jump in =)
 
As everyone says its up to personal views. I cant stand the wide low tanks they look very squat to me.
My last tank was 120x36x30 and would love to build a 130 x 48 x 48.
As of lighting the corals dont know how many feet are below them. Leave the high light needs ones at the 24" mark and above and rest go below.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Invasive Algae in my tank
Replies
10
Views
314
Timfish
Timfish
raidendex
Fixing White Balance
Replies
2
Views
159
wvned
wvned
Z
5.7ft tank stocking
Replies
7
Views
274
ZanaZoola14
Z
B
Help needed with aiptasia tank
Replies
3
Views
219
griss
griss
J
I want to build a 90 Gallon Tank. I'm New New.
Replies
4
Views
321
albano
albano
Back
Top