Octopus XP 1000 cone or SWC 160 cone for a 93 gallon?
 

What do you guys think. I have the SWC 160 cone. It is a great skimmer, I am just worried that it is not enough for my 93 gallon tank. The cup is always full of bubbles. Pretty dry skimmate as well. Would the 1000 XP be a step up or about the same?

I assume you mean the xp2000 cone?

The xp2000 im my mind really tops out at a heavy stocked 90 gallon. About the same as the SWC160. so I dont think you would really be gaining much on it.

the XP1000SSS cone is yet to be released (supposedly coming this month if not already). The specs are very simular as far as size. The XP1000 advertises 900lph or air vs 700lph but until its released performance is speculative. based on size specs it would be a moderate upgrade in capacity at best. specs (per reef specialty) will be 6.5" base, 19.9" tall, 3.5" neck, 900lph air). Unless you need the sump saver design for space I really dont see spending the extra $50 for this over the SRO-1000 since it has the semi cone transition. the neck is a half inch smaller (3" vs 3.5") indicating the XP1000 is using a large neck to make up for the body real estate taken up by the pump to handle the pump.

XP2000SSS neck is 1" bigger, base almost 1.5" bigger, is over 5" taller and pulls twice the air. they arent anything simular in size or capacity. there's nothing about the specs of the XP2000 that indicates it would max out anywhere near 90g unless its a poor performer which the consenses doesn't seem to think. the specs of the SWC on the other hand indicate you probably dont want too push it too much over 90g.

I think if you are only making bubbles in the collection cup, I think your skimmer is too big. Not enough waste to make skimmate.

I've been looking at almost the same skimmers but I think I'd go with the SWC 160 because it seems easy to take apart for maintenance. There's also the Bubble Magus NAC7 that is very comparable in performance to these skimmers and seems to be better priced.

There is no way the skimmer pulls 700LPH. The pump only pulls 400LPH when it is restricted to the skimmer body it goes down to around 300LPH. Another thing that scares me is the large taper. This taper could hinder performance. The skimmer would work all right but after looking into to it, it would perform between a SWC 120 and a SWC 160. Plus I would take an attman pump over a bubbleblaster pump nay day. Bubble blasters are notorious for being loud sometimes. Kinda of like a sicce, hit or miss. Attmans on the other hand are affordable, quiet, and reliable. SO if something did go wrong it would be a cheap fix. I'll just hold onto my swc 160 cone.

Oh it is making waste. The bubbles are really dry skimmate. The cup if filling up overnight and then slowly forming into dark black skimmate.

which skimmer are you referring to (that only pulls 400lph, fits between the SWC120 and 160 and taper you dont like?)

If its the SRO/XP-1000 where have you seen test of the BB1000 that leads you to believe its only capable of 400lph? My specs (900lph on the XP1000sss) are whats advertised on Reef Specialty's site. I have never seen a meter hooked up to a BB1000 anywhere. you have? the BB2000 has been metered many times on the skimmer and pulls about twice the air of a SWC atman.

there have been NO official pictures released of the XP1000SSS (reef specialty shows a pic of the XP2000sss) unless you know something I dont so where have you seen the taper? there is nothing unusual about the SRO and XP2000 taper. the WM, ATB and larger SWC cones have greater taper. what's your theory in particular about the taper you see problematic. Sounds to me you just already knew your answer before you posted. most people with a cup full of bubbles runneth over and dry skimate arent looking for new skimmers and you've been in all the SWC cone threads enough to know the SWC160 will easily handle a 90g.

I would probably get the Octo over the SWC, but then again I am biased. Check out this thread, pictures don't lie! :D

I did a little more research after I posted this thread and found some information out. The 1000BB only pulls 400-480 LPH. According to premium
http://premiumaquatics.com/store/mer..._Code=OctoPump
After the pump is hooked up to the skimmer body, the pump loses some air pull. It would fluctuate around 300 to 350 max.
I was looking at the picture from premiums website and the taper looks large in the picture. I don't know for sure, but I feel that the taper is to large of a transition for the pump and body size. It reminds me of the MSX minis cone that I had. The taper was to large in my opinion. Here is a link to the skimmer off of premium.
http://premiumaquatics.com/store/mer..._Code=oct-cone
Look at the taper on that thing...

Now here is my research and I could be wrong. I know the 2000 XP cone is a great cone. I had one. It was a little to much for my moderately stocked 93. I got rid of it because of a height issue. I only have 23" underneath my stand. So it was too tight of a fit. Plus I have a small 15 gallons sump so the SWC 160 cone was a much better fit.

I rant and rave about the SWC because they are great skimmers. I was just trying to get more info on the 1000 XP because there is not much info on them. I really shouldn't have to explain myself. If the 1000 XP pulls 900 LPH which it won't, then it would be 400LPH higher than the 160 thus making it suitable for larger tanks. If it pulled 900LPH, and it has a 9.1 x 7.5 x 19.9" tall footprint it makes for a nice option.

Here is the breakdown I was thinking before with the advertised 900LPH rating.
SWC 120-300LPH
SWC 160-500LPH
Octopus 1000 SS XP-900LPH
Octopus 2000 XP -XP 1400LPH (Not correct, it was first advertised at this)

This is my feeling now in order
SWC 120 -300LPH
Octopus 1000 -350LPH
SWC 160 - 500 LPH
Octopus 2000XP- (ACTUAL 700-900LPH!!!!!)

700 to 900 LPH is a big drop from the advertised 1400 LPH when they first started coming out.
That is up to a 30% decrease in what was advertised!
How can a skimmer magically pull 1400 LPH when the pump is only rated at 1000 to 1100 LPH???? Here is the evidence.
http://premiumaquatics.com/store/mer..._Code=OctoPump


SO if the 2000XP is pulling 700 to 900 LPH. Explain to me how a pump over half the size will produce more than the bubble blaster 2000? I can almost bet my life savings that the 1000 XP SS will not pull 900LPH.
:thumbsup:

I made an error last night.
My SWC 160 pulls 700LPH not 500LPH in 8-9" of water. I have my water in my sump at 8.75".
So the correct list would be
SWC 120 - 300LPH
Octopus 1000 SS XP- 350LPH
SWC 160-700LPH
Octopus 2000XP- 700-900LPH
The 160 cone is pretty close to the octo 2000XP.
When I posted this long post, it was late last night and I was tired.

the XR-2000 pulls 40+scfh so I dont know where your getting 700-900lph from:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...55&postcount=5

I have seen the advertised specs on the BB1000 pump. the advertised specs on the BB2000 (as listed by premium aquatics) are 1000-1200lph and since I've seen verified 42scfh HOOKED to a XP2000 (meaning its actually more according to your assessment of losing lph running a skimmer) I have no reason to believe those specs are actual at all. just the neck size and dimensions alone of the SRO/XP1000 indicate a 300-350lph performing pump will not work well on them and unlikely to be the case. might as well start the SRO line with the 2000 as that would make the SRO1000 not very different from a NWB-150.

anyhow pump excluded, size, dimensions, pricing, tank size rating have the SRO/XP1000 as close to direct competitors to the SWC 160 cone as any two skimmers from different companies can be. excluding price the eshopps economy cone fits into that category as well despite pulling 450lph air. as does the BM NA7 which also pulls no where near 700lph which no one would consider inbetween the SWC120 and SWC160. the SWC120 may (or may not) be more effecient at skimming than all the above but its not capable of processing enough water through it be considered with any of the above as far as tank capacity it can handle and the SWC160 is not that much head and shoulders above those others to be considered capable of skimming larger tanks then the above based on just air draw. lots of like sized skimmers from different companies pull different air numbers and are still appropriate for the same size tank range. I do think the SWC160 cone is the BEST of the ones OUT (why I have it) but I'll reserve oppinion on the XP1000 WHEN its actually out and somebody test it. Even if its a better performer I still would have no justification for changing from a skimmer that does a perfect job already and has convienent features that the XP series doesn't (adjust without hands getting wet, comes apart, adjustable air, readily available spare parts sold seperately)

Scfh/lph ratings of a skimmer pump not attached to a body are pretty meaningless.

Running tests on it with my friends air meter as well as other people I know that have them. Now this is after that fact that I had to run mine so my output was above water level, and if I remember right it was at 6.25 inches. I had to run the skimmer at this level because the skimmer would build up head pressure and start overflowing. I was one of many that had to raise their skimmer up to this height.
So the skimmer functions properly at 700-900 LPH.

Reef specialty got 40scfh in 6" of water which is still way above 900lph. Not saying different people and meters wont get different results but the results done by the people I trust have it pulling way more than 700-900lph even in 6" of water. I mean they could have just used the sicce psk2500 with a better pinwheel they were already using on the extremes to get under 1000lph.

SWC all the way

Okay, you have your point of view, and I have mine. But the skimmer is advertised to pull 50 and it is only pulling 40 max still with your findings. I know MSX did the same with some of their skimmers, claiming 7 or 8 more scfh than the actual.