Unhappy 6305 Owner

[ZenMan]

Roger-

I don't have experience with the smaller Tunze pumps but I do with the 6305 model. Maybe I never PM'd you or emailed you but I have experienced your products not performing as expected. In December 2009 I designed a custom 670 gallon aquarium that measures 10' x 3' x 3' to incorporate built in wave boxes powered by two $700 6305's. I even posted pictures of the working waveboxes within this Tunze thread.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1807486

In designing the system I took your advertised flow rate of 7,925 gph into direct consideration in the overall operation of the tank. Two 6305s as well as Super Dart Gold (return pump) should have provided around 20,000 gph of flow within the tank. While my initial impression was quite favorable, I staring losing thousands of dollars worth of coral due to unexplained reasons. My parameters were within my expectations, and I thought a 30X (20,000/gph / 670 gallons tank volume) turnover ratio should be adequate to support my SPS reef that I transferred from an older 225 gallon. Based on the latest testing it is quite clear that my flow was grossly inadequate (at about half of what was to be expected -- 16X turnover) and most likely caused the loss of thousands of dollars worth of coral.

Even before this article was published I added two MP60s to my system in order to boost my flow up to over 35,000 gph, or over 52X turnover. The difference in flow was immediately distinguishable and I now have a growing reef. In reality with the new actual 6305 flow rate, I have a flow rate of 27,200 gph or 40X turnover.

I appreciate that you have acknowledged Tunze's mistake but none of this explains why you would ever go to market with a product that does not achieve what you claimed it does or why you did not indicate the testing methods or that the flow numbers were an approximation. Please tell me how you plan on rectifying the situation for me and what I should do for the next 6 months while we are waiting for a fix. Thank you.

 

[rishma]

against my better judgement, I am going to comment on your post. Please understand I am sorry for the loss of your corals. That can be very frustrating after investing in a 670 gallon tank.

Your reasoning and conclusions are flawed. You built 2 wave boxes that successfully produce a large 4" Wave in your tank. That is a very impressive wave; however, waves + your return pump alone are not sufficient flow regardless of how many GPH the wavebox pumps are capable of producing. If you look for recommendations on using waveboxes, you will always find that strong directional flow is recommended in addition to the waves. The waveboxes set up a resonant wave that produces excellent supplementary water movement but you need strong directional mass flow of water in addition.

It turns out the actual flow rate from a wavebox pump is not a critical parameter if you achieve the standing wave you desire. Adding up cumulative flow rate and including wave box pumps is simply not sensible.

I am glad the addition of flow pumps corrected your issue. I bet your tank is much happier. best of luck.

 

[rvitko]

There will be a new propeller housing and new propeller for 6305. It will take time to get these parts made. I am sorry but you will have to be patient.

It is a big jump to the conclusion that the flow was the cause of coral losses, give us sometime, you may be surprised by the changes and the results of our own tests. This was one test, it gave gph at a certain distance, this study does not tell the full story.

Before this test, there was no test, these meters were not common or remotely affordable years ago, the other guys just got lucky, they designed from a different stand point, we designed based on years of feedback, hearing about every sucked in fish and anemone and we shielded our propeller far more as a result, every design requires some compromise, we erred on the side of safety and this reduced flow. Be patient, it isn't quite what it seems, there is no conclusion to be drawn as of yet. We only acknowledge that doing the same test, the same way, we get the same result, but we have a lot more to look into and if you look at this logically, directing 4000gph at your reef vs blasting 8000 randomly into the tank in all direction is a very different result. Give us time, this will not be the last flow test and I think we will be vindicated in time.

 

[rvitko]

I am confused now, if the 6305's were used to build waveboxes, the gph of the study is irrelevant, the flow of waveboxes is very simply calculated and is not a factor of the pump flow solely.

Wavebox flow is wave volume multiplied by number of wave cycles in an hour, it is an extremely high number. You would calculate wave volume by (tank length * tank width * wave height )/2 in inches and then divide the entire number by 231 this is the gallon volume of the wave, then simply time how many waves you get in a minute and multiply by 60.

 

[ZenMan]

Roger,

Please PM me and let me know how Tunze will make this right. I'm not going to get into theoretical calculations on a wavebox wave as we know how well your theoretical calculations on pump output worked out.

Here are my proposed resolutions:
1). Full refund of my purchase price for the 6305s plus some cash for the loss of corals, or:

2). Two more 6305s right now plus full free upgrade rights to your advertised flow rate plus some cash for the loss of corals.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll show you purchase invoices for over $2500 worth of coral. I won't ask you to compensate at 100%, but I am looking for something.....

 

[rvitko]

There is nothing theoretical about it, that is the way the flow volume of a wave is calculated, it is 100% accurate. I will not respond further to this thread.

 

[ZenMan]

Roger, no PM?

I am a Tunze 6305 customer. I will show you the purchase receipts. I will not wait 6 months for a solution. Please let me know how Tunze will make this right for me NOW.

 

[ZenMan]

Here's a quick legal analysis:

I relied on Tunze's written assertions to my detriment.
I can prove I am a customer.
I have actual losses.
I can document my losses.
I have a valid claim against Tunze.
I am waiting for a response.

 

[Mindflux]

Roger, no PM?

I am a Tunze 6305 customer. I will show you the purchase receipts. I will not wait 6 months for a solution. Please let me know how Tunze will make this right for me NOW.

Obviously I'm not Roger, but if you want MOST of the flow advertised your best bet would be to run those pumps shroudless. Of course I'm not going to be held liable when your fish get eaten by the exposed prop so please don't ask me for compensation when it happens.

Until Tunze can re-engineer the parts affecting flow ... which is estimated to be 6 months what do you expect to happen?

 

[ZenMan]

Until Tunze can re-engineer the parts affecting flow ... which is estimated to be 6 months what do you expect to happen?

Here are my proposed resolutions:
1). Full refund of my purchase price for the 6305s plus some cash for the loss of corals, or:

2). Two more 6305s right now (So that I have the advertised flow from their products) plus full free upgrade rights to your advertised flow rate plus some cash for the loss of corals.

 

[Mindflux]

Here are my proposed resolutions:
1). Full refund of my purchase price for the 6305s plus some cash for the loss of corals, or:

2). Two more 6305s right now (So that I have the advertised flow from their products) plus full free upgrade rights to your advertised flow rate plus some cash for the loss of corals.

I'm not sure either of those are reasonable. Can you prove beyond a doubt the pumps were the cause for loss? If not I'm not sure you have any legal foothold other than the product was misrepresented due to calculation errors in flow metering.

*Edited to add: I can surely sympathize with you over lost corals and the expenses. I don't have nearly that much in my TINY reef tank and surely I'd be devastated to lose what I had. Best of luck to you. I'm sure if you wanted to sell your 6305's you could offload them to someone who'll be willing to wait for the revised parts.

 

[vader88]

ZenMan,

Hate to break it to you, but your not getting anything but a fix.

I recently bought a new car, the starter failed after 3 months.

Did I get a new car, NO
Did I get paid for time missed at work, NO
Did they pay for my spoiled groceries, NO
Did the car dealer fix my car, yes.

From what I've read, Tunze will make it right and make the pump performed at their advertised specs. Your ultimatums are unreasonable with the exceptions of receiving the upgraded part.

As far as the loss of your coral, that sucks. I don't understand how you can say the pumps were 100 percent part of the problem.

 

[JG1]

ZenMan,

Hate to break it to you, but your not getting anything but a fix.

I recently bought a new car, the starter failed after 3 months.

Did I get a new car, NO
Did I get paid for time missed at work, NO
Did they pay for my spoiled groceries, NO
Did the car dealer fix my car, yes.

From what I've read, Tunze will make it right and make the pump performed at their advertised specs. Your ultimatums are unreasonable with the exceptions of receiving the upgraded part.

As far as the loss of your coral, that sucks. I don't understand how you can say the pumps were 100 percent part of the problem.

But what if that new car you bought was advertised at 300HP, and in fact it was only 150HP?

 

[James77]

But what if that new car you bought was advertised at 300HP, and in fact it was only 150HP?

What if the manufacturer came around and corrected it to the 300 HP?

 

[SWINGRRRR]

Odd that you never contacted Tunze in the past regarding the problem. Until thestudy came out. Your demands are completely un-realistic.

 

[Mindflux]

What if the manufacturer came around and corrected it to the 300 HP?

Well if a MFG did that they'd be boned, considering it's not a 15 dollar retrofit shroud.

Mazda did just this with the RX8. Quoted it to have something like 220HP, finally revised the number down to 190 (going off memory, but should be close enough) in the end they gave everyone a couple hundred bucks back that had bought a car before they revised the window stickers.

 

[eisaiasjr]

Not to add wood to the fire but...

Advertised GPH/$ comparison:
Model Cost GPH GPH/$(higher is better)
6105 $311 3434 11.04
6205 $495 5811 11.73
6305 $710 7925 11.16

Actual GPH/$ comparison:
Model Cost GPH GPH/$(higher is better)
6105 $311 2358 7.58
6205 $495 3234 6.53
6305 $710 3597 5.06

Seems to me that its only fair that 6105, 6205 and 6305 owners should get some sort of tunze credit or something!

 

[d0ughb0y]

Odd that you never contacted Tunze in the past regarding the problem. Until thestudy came out. Your demands are completely un-realistic.

think about it, tunze is so great, it was probably the last thing he would think was the cause of the problem. so it does make sense.

 

[vader88]

Well if a MFG did that they'd be boned, considering it's not a 15 dollar retrofit shroud.

Mazda did just this with the RX8. Quoted it to have something like 220HP, finally revised the number down to 190 (going off memory, but should be close enough) in the end they gave everyone a couple hundred bucks back that had bought a car before they revised the window stickers.

Point proved....

Couple hundred bucks back on a 30,000 car from a major manufacturer. According to the OP's logic, he should get a brand another brand new car and gas and services for life.

 

[ZenMan]

Please see highlighted portion copied from the Texas Revised Statutes:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/BC/htm/BC.17.htm

Sec. 17.46. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES UNLAWFUL. (a) False, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful and are subject to action by the consumer protection division under Sections 17.47, 17.58, 17.60, and 17.61 of this code.
(b) Except as provided in Subsection (d) of this section, the term "false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices" includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
(1) passing off goods or services as those of another;
(2) causing confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;
(3) causing confusion or misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another;
(4) using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services;
(5) representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he does not;

Waiting six months for a fix is not an option. Flow rate of a pump is one of the primary reasons we buy a pump, if the flow rate is misrepresented, then the sale is VOIDABLE and consequential damages aren't out of the question.

I'd just asking Roger to PM me about "taking care of this customer". There is no need to escalate this but I will if I don't receive a satisfactory response.