48"x48"x20" Opinions on size?

Lunchbucket · 03/10/2007, 10:42 PM

Well, I have an opportunity to buy a tank that is 48"x48"x20" with a powder coated steal stand. The tank is dilled for 6 - 1.5" bulkheads in the back. All eurobraced so no center brace. It is all 3/4" acrylic with the paper still on it. Been filled onces to test fittings.

I really like the 48x48 part. When I was dreaming of a big system it was going to be 36" or 48" of depth. My main question is would 20" of height be a big problem? We are 99% sure this is going to be a FOWLR tank w/ no corals so upward growth shouldn't be a problem. My 58gal is 36x18x20 and I don't have a problem at all w/ the 20" of height but on a 48x48 would I??

Opinions?
thanks
Lunchbucket

Zoos · 03/10/2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lunchbucket
Well, I have an opportunity to buy a tank that is 48"x48"x20" with a powder coated steal stand. The tank is dilled for 6 - 1.5" bulkheads in the back. All eurobraced so no center brace. It is all 3/4" acrylic with the paper still on it. Been filled onces to test fittings.

I really like the 48x48 part. When I was dreaming of a big system it was going to be 36" or 48" of depth. My main question is would 20" of height be a big problem? We are 99% sure this is going to be a FOWLR tank w/ no corals so upward growth shouldn't be a problem. My 58gal is 36x18x20 and I don't have a problem at all w/ the 20" of height but on a 48x48 would I??

Opinions?
thanks
Lunchbucket

Why would it be a problem? I really boils down to taste, I personally think it would look great. I am in the process of building myself a new tank and it it will be a shallow 90 gallon 20" high. I say go for it.

Lunchbucket · 03/10/2007, 10:56 PM

True True. I'm not a tall tank guy either. Just wondering if I would really regret not getting a 24" tank...never mind it would cost quite a bit ...well a lot more

Lunchbucket

Salamander · 03/10/2007, 11:42 PM

I would think the hieght would be ok but personally with the same water volume I'd go with a 60 x 36. Ya' know how looking into a deep tank you the light refraction makes it hard to tell the dimesions but when the view side is longer it makes it look soo much bigger. JMHO

xenon · 03/10/2007, 11:52 PM

I vote 24" tall but in the end its all personal taste.

Lunchbucket · 03/11/2007, 09:53 AM

The deal is that it will cost about half of what I could have it made for. That is the BIG factor for us

We are saving for a house and really weren't thinking about getting our big tank yet but for the price we're thinking it might be too good to pass up.

Lunchbucket

Voxboy · 03/11/2007, 10:03 AM

I love the the idea of a tank with 48" depth from front to back. I don't think the 20 inch depth is an issue...depends on the depth of your sandbed....you may be trimming some corals dwon in a year or two.

Lunchbucket · 03/11/2007, 10:06 AM

Voxboy - It will 99% sure be a fish only tank

Lunchbucket

Voxboy · 03/11/2007, 10:13 AM

Can't wait to see pics.

Hop · 03/11/2007, 10:53 AM

I would ask... Does the current opportunity and price outweigh your current plans?

If it is one of those opportunities that you can't pass up, jump on it! But if you are always going to be wishing you would have gone taller/bigger, then don't

I think the shallow tank could be great, but I like shallow tanks that sit on taller stands and have a nice canopy, not sure that's in you plans.

Either way, I think it could be a great project!

Good luck lunch!

Lunchbucket · 03/11/2007, 11:32 AM

Hop - great point. I don't think the 20" will really bother me. I've always liked shallower tanks also. 30" would be WAY too tall for me.

I think that I just wanted to see what people thought about 20" tall. I don't think I ever thought about wanting a different size. More of a question on who had a 20" that hated it or wished they did differently.

I think this is a can't pass up option.
Lunchbucket

Laakmann · 03/11/2007, 11:33 AM

I have a tank with similar dimensions, 36x34x18. Honestly I would say that the fowler tank, other than maintence there is no advantage (price excluded) to having a short tank. Infact if you stacked your LR right I think 30 inches of hieght would look awsome. Short tanks are really cool though, thats why I got mine with an 18" hieght.

reef10 · 03/12/2007, 09:37 AM

I like big foot prints with lower height, but it depends on what you are going to keep. It would be better for coral because less light would be lost in the water coloum. As for fish it would depend on the fish. For jumpers, like wrasses or firefish, the reduced hight might make jumping more of a problem. This could be taken care of with jump guards. It would give plenty of swimming space for small tangs. It would also provide for plently of ground space for terratorial fish.

Will it be viewable from all sides?

burton14e7 · 03/12/2007, 10:22 AM

That depth reminds me of Steve's tank. I'm sure whatever you do with it will be awesome just make sure to share

http://www.oregonreef.com/sub_tank.htm

davidryder · 03/12/2007, 11:37 AM

It could be like a lagoon reef... perfect height IMO. the top of the tank could be chest height so you can view it from the top, then bend down or step back a bit and look in from the side. If it's a fish only tank, it would look odd unless you can naturally view it from 3-4 sides. It would almost be too deep to see the back 12".

Lunchbucket · 03/12/2007, 01:35 PM

thanks guys. Still deciding

Lunchbucket

Peter Eichler · 03/12/2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lunchbucket
thanks guys. Still deciding

Lunchbucket

I see no problems with 20" of height. Essentially what you're going to have is a tank that looks like a very deep 75 gallon and I've never looked at a 75 gallon and thought it wasn't tall enough.

TitansFan · 03/12/2007, 02:55 PM

The only thing I don't like about shorter tanks is that they sometimes look disproportional. Just make sure you don't just a large, tall canopy. I really don't like the look of alot of wood on top and bottom with a sliver of glass in between.

Does the acrylic bother you though?

SptfireXIV · 03/12/2007, 03:04 PM

20" of height makes aquascaping a lot easier. I'm loving my 36x24x20.

Lunchbucket · 03/12/2007, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TitansFan

Does the acrylic bother you though?

Why would it bother me? Due to scratching easier?? I'm not against it

Wife and I were talking and instead of going for a FOWLR if we put our two 58gals together we will have almost a 100% full tank w/ equipment. We can use my 2x400w Halides, her 660 icecap ballast for actinics, my skimmer, my ca rx, my chiller, my CL pump for a CL on the tank, my two tunzes, one of our return pumps. Basically all we would need is LR, sand, salt and MORE livestock. It would be an SPS / clam tank w/ quite a few tangs. Wife wants some tangs.

Lunchbucket

melev · 03/12/2007, 10:09 PM

Do it.

davidryder · 03/12/2007, 11:20 PM

Sounds AWESOME!!! Have you thought about the viewing height of the tank?

DrBegalke · 03/12/2007, 11:28 PM

i think 20" deep would be fine, it'll save you on some of the lighting costs as well (less wattage needed) as well as make it easier (somewhat) to reach the bottom/middle of the tank....

Hop · 03/13/2007, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lunchbucket
Why would it bother me? Due to scratching easier?? I'm not against it

Wife and I were talking and instead of going for a FOWLR if we put our two 58gals together we will have almost a 100% full tank w/ equipment. We can use my 2x400w Halides, her 660 icecap ballast for actinics, my skimmer, my ca rx, my chiller, my CL pump for a CL on the tank, my two tunzes, one of our return pumps. Basically all we would need is LR, sand, salt and MORE livestock. It would be an SPS / clam tank w/ quite a few tangs. Wife wants some tangs.

Lunchbucket

See, now that is a plan that I like

I'm just trying to figure out why it's not in the livingroom already

With pics!

scoutmaniak · 03/13/2007, 01:07 AM

Now that sounds like a plan!! FOWLR tanks are kinda boring. I have an angel tank, but still have a nice t-5 light so I can keep the corals my angels dont eat. Plus the light keeps the coralline, and microalgea growing so you fish can eat it. Clams, SPS, and tangs...Cant beat it!! That is one deep tank, almost like a pond... I love it!!! Good luck, cant wait to see the pics if you get it,

Michael

03/10/2007, 10:42 PM	#1
Lunchbucket Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Brookings, SD Posts: 12,924	48"x48"x20" Opinions on size? Well, I have an opportunity to buy a tank that is 48"x48"x20" with a powder coated steal stand. The tank is dilled for 6 - 1.5" bulkheads in the back. All eurobraced so no center brace. It is all 3/4" acrylic with the paper still on it. Been filled onces to test fittings. I really like the 48x48 part. When I was dreaming of a big system it was going to be 36" or 48" of depth. My main question is would 20" of height be a big problem? We are 99% sure this is going to be a FOWLR tank w/ no corals so upward growth shouldn't be a problem. My 58gal is 36x18x20 and I don't have a problem at all w/ the 20" of height but on a 48x48 would I?? Opinions? thanks Lunchbucket __________________ Trying to lose weight by walking is like trying to bake a cake w/ a cigarette lighter - Lunchbucket - "Nancy-Boy Extraordinaire" - maxxII- Current Tank Info: 58gal Oceanic RR, 2x400w MH (20k XM and 10k XM), Deltec PF601 Ca Rx, Deltec AP701 skimmer, mag950 return, iwaki 55rlt w/ an Oceansmotions 4-way unit, Tunze 7300 and 6000 each w/ controller, fluidized po4 rx

03/10/2007, 10:56 PM	#3
Lunchbucket Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Brookings, SD Posts: 12,924	True True. I'm not a tall tank guy either. Just wondering if I would really regret not getting a 24" tank...never mind it would cost quite a bit ...well a lot more Lunchbucket __________________ Trying to lose weight by walking is like trying to bake a cake w/ a cigarette lighter - Lunchbucket - "Nancy-Boy Extraordinaire" - maxxII- Current Tank Info: 58gal Oceanic RR, 2x400w MH (20k XM and 10k XM), Deltec PF601 Ca Rx, Deltec AP701 skimmer, mag950 return, iwaki 55rlt w/ an Oceansmotions 4-way unit, Tunze 7300 and 6000 each w/ controller, fluidized po4 rx

03/10/2007, 11:42 PM	#4
Salamander Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Flagstaff, Arizona Posts: 2,103	I would think the hieght would be ok but personally with the same water volume I'd go with a 60 x 36. Ya' know how looking into a deep tank you the light refraction makes it hard to tell the dimesions but when the view side is longer it makes it look soo much bigger. JMHO __________________ I feel more like myself now than I did before. Current Tank Info: 120g mixed reef, 2 x 250W DE MH, 2 x 54w T5, MSX 200 SKimmer, 2 Koralia 4's, 40g fuge/sump, QT

03/11/2007, 09:53 AM	#6
Lunchbucket Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Brookings, SD Posts: 12,924	The deal is that it will cost about half of what I could have it made for. That is the BIG factor for us We are saving for a house and really weren't thinking about getting our big tank yet but for the price we're thinking it might be too good to pass up. Lunchbucket __________________ Trying to lose weight by walking is like trying to bake a cake w/ a cigarette lighter - Lunchbucket - "Nancy-Boy Extraordinaire" - maxxII- Current Tank Info: 58gal Oceanic RR, 2x400w MH (20k XM and 10k XM), Deltec PF601 Ca Rx, Deltec AP701 skimmer, mag950 return, iwaki 55rlt w/ an Oceansmotions 4-way unit, Tunze 7300 and 6000 each w/ controller, fluidized po4 rx

03/11/2007, 10:03 AM	#7
Voxboy Premium Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Sault Ste Marie Posts: 410	I love the the idea of a tank with 48" depth from front to back. I don't think the 20 inch depth is an issue...depends on the depth of your sandbed....you may be trimming some corals dwon in a year or two. __________________ Like my Grandfather...I wish to die peacefully in my sleep....unlike the screaming passengers in his car Current Tank Info: 130g mixed reef.

03/10/2007, 11:52 PM	#5
xenon Owner of Canada Corals Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Mississauga, Canada Posts: 3,148	I vote 24" tall but in the end its all personal taste.

03/11/2007, 10:06 AM	#8
Lunchbucket Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Brookings, SD Posts: 12,924	Voxboy - It will 99% sure be a fish only tank Lunchbucket __________________ Trying to lose weight by walking is like trying to bake a cake w/ a cigarette lighter - Lunchbucket - "Nancy-Boy Extraordinaire" - maxxII- Current Tank Info: 58gal Oceanic RR, 2x400w MH (20k XM and 10k XM), Deltec PF601 Ca Rx, Deltec AP701 skimmer, mag950 return, iwaki 55rlt w/ an Oceansmotions 4-way unit, Tunze 7300 and 6000 each w/ controller, fluidized po4 rx

03/11/2007, 10:13 AM	#9
Voxboy Premium Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Sault Ste Marie Posts: 410	Can't wait to see pics. __________________ Like my Grandfather...I wish to die peacefully in my sleep....unlike the screaming passengers in his car Current Tank Info: 130g mixed reef.

03/11/2007, 10:53 AM	#10
Hop Carpe Noctem!!! Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Western Colorado Posts: 8,548	I would ask... Does the current opportunity and price outweigh your current plans? If it is one of those opportunities that you can't pass up, jump on it! But if you are always going to be wishing you would have gone taller/bigger, then don't I think the shallow tank could be great, but I like shallow tanks that sit on taller stands and have a nice canopy, not sure that's in you plans. Either way, I think it could be a great project! Good luck lunch! __________________ Hop Current Tank Info: 300-gallon in-wall system (mixed reef)

03/11/2007, 11:32 AM	#11
Lunchbucket Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Brookings, SD Posts: 12,924	Hop - great point. I don't think the 20" will really bother me. I've always liked shallower tanks also. 30" would be WAY too tall for me. I think that I just wanted to see what people thought about 20" tall. I don't think I ever thought about wanting a different size. More of a question on who had a 20" that hated it or wished they did differently. I think this is a can't pass up option. Lunchbucket __________________ Trying to lose weight by walking is like trying to bake a cake w/ a cigarette lighter - Lunchbucket - "Nancy-Boy Extraordinaire" - maxxII- Current Tank Info: 58gal Oceanic RR, 2x400w MH (20k XM and 10k XM), Deltec PF601 Ca Rx, Deltec AP701 skimmer, mag950 return, iwaki 55rlt w/ an Oceansmotions 4-way unit, Tunze 7300 and 6000 each w/ controller, fluidized po4 rx

03/11/2007, 11:33 AM	#12
Laakmann Registered Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 332	I have a tank with similar dimensions, 36x34x18. Honestly I would say that the fowler tank, other than maintence there is no advantage (price excluded) to having a short tank. Infact if you stacked your LR right I think 30 inches of hieght would look awsome. Short tanks are really cool though, thats why I got mine with an 18" hieght. __________________ 90 gallon BB SPS cube Current Tank Info: 90 reef, 125 single oscar tank, 55 QT

03/12/2007, 09:37 AM	#13
reef10 Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: hampton roads VA Posts: 222	I like big foot prints with lower height, but it depends on what you are going to keep. It would be better for coral because less light would be lost in the water coloum. As for fish it would depend on the fish. For jumpers, like wrasses or firefish, the reduced hight might make jumping more of a problem. This could be taken care of with jump guards. It would give plenty of swimming space for small tangs. It would also provide for plently of ground space for terratorial fish. Will it be viewable from all sides?

03/12/2007, 10:22 AM	#14
burton14e7 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Keller, Tx Posts: 2,009	That depth reminds me of Steve's tank. I'm sure whatever you do with it will be awesome just make sure to share http://www.oregonreef.com/sub_tank.htm __________________ Go Lakers! Current Tank Info: Currently awaiting relapse.

03/12/2007, 11:37 AM	#15
davidryder Claris or Elliot? Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Nightopia Posts: 2,750	It could be like a lagoon reef... perfect height IMO. the top of the tank could be chest height so you can view it from the top, then bend down or step back a bit and look in from the side. If it's a fish only tank, it would look odd unless you can naturally view it from 3-4 sides. It would almost be too deep to see the back 12". __________________ A rolling stone gathers no moss... Current Tank Info: 90g mixed reef, corner overflow (Mag 9.5), 25g refugium (Mag 5), 15g refugium, Orbit 260w pc, Pan World 50PX-X (Closed loop), AquaC EV-120 (now skimmerless)

03/12/2007, 01:35 PM	#16
Lunchbucket Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Brookings, SD Posts: 12,924	thanks guys. Still deciding Lunchbucket __________________ Trying to lose weight by walking is like trying to bake a cake w/ a cigarette lighter - Lunchbucket - "Nancy-Boy Extraordinaire" - maxxII- Current Tank Info: 58gal Oceanic RR, 2x400w MH (20k XM and 10k XM), Deltec PF601 Ca Rx, Deltec AP701 skimmer, mag950 return, iwaki 55rlt w/ an Oceansmotions 4-way unit, Tunze 7300 and 6000 each w/ controller, fluidized po4 rx

03/12/2007, 02:55 PM	#18
TitansFan Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Spring Hill, TN Posts: 1,364	The only thing I don't like about shorter tanks is that they sometimes look disproportional. Just make sure you don't just a large, tall canopy. I really don't like the look of alot of wood on top and bottom with a sliver of glass in between. Does the acrylic bother you though?

03/12/2007, 03:04 PM	#19
SptfireXIV Premium Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Harrisonburg, VA Posts: 1,247	20" of height makes aquascaping a lot easier. I'm loving my 36x24x20. __________________ Jason Current Tank Info: 120 Gallon Rimless SPS Reef

03/12/2007, 10:09 PM	#21
melev Moved On Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Ft Worth, Tx Posts: 43,217	Do it.

03/12/2007, 11:20 PM	#22
davidryder Claris or Elliot? Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Nightopia Posts: 2,750	Sounds AWESOME!!! Have you thought about the viewing height of the tank? __________________ A rolling stone gathers no moss... Current Tank Info: 90g mixed reef, corner overflow (Mag 9.5), 25g refugium (Mag 5), 15g refugium, Orbit 260w pc, Pan World 50PX-X (Closed loop), AquaC EV-120 (now skimmerless)

03/12/2007, 11:28 PM	#23
DrBegalke Go Buckeyes! Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Phoenix area, AZ Posts: 2,599	i think 20" deep would be fine, it'll save you on some of the lighting costs as well (less wattage needed) as well as make it easier (somewhat) to reach the bottom/middle of the tank.... __________________ ~Jason Begalke Current Tank Info: Latest project: JBJ Cubey

03/13/2007, 01:07 AM	#25
scoutmaniak Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: New Mexico Down In The Desert!! Posts: 500	Now that sounds like a plan!! FOWLR tanks are kinda boring. I have an angel tank, but still have a nice t-5 light so I can keep the corals my angels dont eat. Plus the light keeps the coralline, and microalgea growing so you fish can eat it. Clams, SPS, and tangs...Cant beat it!! That is one deep tank, almost like a pond... I love it!!! Good luck, cant wait to see the pics if you get it, Michael __________________ 15 Gallon Nano 100 Gallon Tek 6 Bulb T-5 Fixture Current Tank Info: 55 gallon FW, 100 gallon Reef and 15 gallon nano