New 55 gallon... MISC questions.

iamtheone · 04/23/2007, 08:59 AM

Hey guys, moving from a 24g aquapod that has been up for around a year. Thinking about moving to a 55 gallon. (corals, fish, live rock)

My first question:

WIDE VS TALL
I came across a Oceanic 58 tall. Which looked great and was only 36" wide which would save a little on lighting. After thinking about it, and this maybe silly. But I plan to add some nice bigger fish. My thoughts is that the fish would be happier in a wider tank than a taller tank? Make sence?

REEF READY VS NOT DRILLED
Some tanks I see have no overflow and/or drilled at the bottom. Would this become an issue? I would like to try to use the aquapod as a fuge. Couldn't I just run some PVC up and out? Your thoughts? Or would it be better to make sure to get a reef ready system and bit the bullet on a wet/dry system...

SKIMMER
I currently have a AquaC Remora skimmer. I should be able to reuse this right? I think it is rated to 90gallon.

Thanks guys for any information....

cdangel0 · 04/23/2007, 09:07 AM

Wider is better IMO - your probably not saving that mich as you would need stronger lighting to reach the botom of the tall tank. With the wider one you could do less wattage and longer bulbs.

The fish would appreciate more swimming room.

I prefer drilled reef-ready tanks - easier, less chances of over-flowes I think (And I say I think becasue I have only ever had a drill tank)

Skimmer should be fine.

rob28 · 04/23/2007, 09:15 AM

My 55 gallon tall wasn't drilled but the bottom was tempered so i had the back drilled and it works fine...Just went a little larger on the piping as i had an extra 90 deg. to deal with..

rob28 · 04/23/2007, 09:19 AM

Oh ya.I bought all the rock in my tank from a freind that was moving away he had a 55 oceanic bowfront and the rock filled his tank where it's seems to be spread pretty thin in mine...The tanks have the same volume but mine seems to have way more room for bigger fish to swim around...

iamtheone · 04/23/2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rob28
Oh ya.I bought all the rock in my tank from a freind that was moving away he had a 55 oceanic bowfront and the rock filled his tank where it's seems to be spread pretty thin in mine...The tanks have the same volume but mine seems to have way more room for bigger fish to swim around...

So, your tall tank seemed to have more swimming room?

ReefNewb77 · 04/23/2007, 10:01 AM

Everywhere I've read, wider is always better than taller.

First of all, most fish swim horizontally rather than vertically.

Secondly, if you get a deeper tank, you will need to get a higher wattage light for deeper penetration. (if you want corals)

Just my two cents.

rob28 · 04/23/2007, 10:07 AM

just the way the rock is in the tank,there seems to be more free space for fish.The bowfront had all the rock in a big pile and the fish were more out of sight behind the rock while swimming around...Personal preferance is the best way to go...Mine they seem to be in veiw as the rock is more spread out...Just my thoughts..

Sepeku · 04/23/2007, 10:09 AM

Repeat after me, "Wider is better".

Seriously, for all the reasons previously mentioned.

Also, you did not mention if you had a sump, which is what having the tank drilled for would help with. I'd go drilled even if you did not have a sump so that in the future, you could install one with no hassle.

Drilled tanks are just safer in that you'd have to install a siphon without the holes. And siphons have a tendacy to fail and flood the room the tank is in.

iamtheone · 04/23/2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sepeku
Repeat after me, "Wider is better".

Seriously, for all the reasons previously mentioned.

Also, you did not mention if you had a sump, which is what having the tank drilled for would help with. I'd go drilled even if you did not have a sump so that in the future, you could install one with no hassle.

Drilled tanks are just safer in that you'd have to install a siphon without the holes. And siphons have a tendacy to fail and flood the room the tank is in.

No, I don't currently have a sump but would like to utilize the aquapod as one... I should be able to do that correct? I know I would have to custom build a stand in order to accomidate that size of tank underneath but...... Either that or go with a wet/dry I guess. Have read so many mixed reviews on that my head spins...

rob28 · 04/23/2007, 11:49 AM

just go with what u like...Your the one that looks at it....ENJOY IT...

cyclops23 · 04/23/2007, 02:19 PM

i have a 55g AGA, i wish i had went with a 75g. it would cost more, but much easier to stack LR, more swimming room for the fish, etc.
i have a used 30g AGA tank i use for a sump, can't get much cheaper than that. i drilled a hole in the back of the tank for the overflow to the sump. it was pretty easy. although a reef ready tank would've been nice.

cyclops23 · 04/23/2007, 02:21 PM

here's a pic, overflow is top right, return is top left. the boxes are made from acrylic.

hndakd · 04/23/2007, 02:24 PM

i used to have a 55 gallon and the width of the tank stunk bad. I upgraded to a 90 gallon and have much more room to stack the rocks and such. also the increased width of the stand gave me ample room to upgrade my sump and such. Definitely go with drilled!

Z-Man07 · 04/23/2007, 02:28 PM

I can agree with pretty much all of the other posters here. Especially cyclops23.

I have had a 55 for a year now and I am REALLY looking forward to moving into a bigger tank. In my personal, limited, and humble experience, a 55 is difficult to aquascape. No matter how I tried, it was very difficult to avoid the commonly dreaded "rock wall."

A 55 has limited visual depth, front to back, in my opinion. If you are asking for my suggestion, it is to get a tank that is at least 18" front to back. Be it a 36" long or 48" long tank. Both have good visual proportions to me. All in all, at least look into a 48" 75g or 90g. You may be satisfied with that tank for a longer period of time than a 55.

FWIW, HTH, IMHO.

jjclark22 · 04/23/2007, 02:32 PM

just my input i had a 50 gallon tall and i had to use way more lighting to get light to all of my corals i switched to a 55 long and the fish have more room to swim i can spread out my corals more and they appreciate the light since its not having to go so deep. especially my leather corals

alexb518 · 04/23/2007, 02:38 PM

tall v. wide: seems like everyone agrees on the wide.

Drilled v. not drilled: if you don't buy one that is drilled with an overflow built in, then you're gonna have to buy an overflow box (looks ugly) and that whole setup. if you get one, for example, from AGA it will be predrilled and you'll just have to plumb it for your current tank as a fuge.

remora skimmer: i've never had one, but i've heard they work great...so, you probably know better than me.

55 gallon: my two cents, you're gonna outgrow that in another year. go with a hundred. it's a lot easier to take car of than a smaller tank too.

iamtheone · 04/24/2007, 08:01 AM

Yeah, I would like to go big, but man just the idea on how to fill this sucker the first time...... I don't want to use city water. The only option would be to use those tap water purifiers but I think those are probably junk. I would have to get me a RO/DI filter installed I guess.

04/23/2007, 08:59 AM	#1
iamtheone Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 59	New 55 gallon... MISC questions. Hey guys, moving from a 24g aquapod that has been up for around a year. Thinking about moving to a 55 gallon. (corals, fish, live rock) My first question: WIDE VS TALL I came across a Oceanic 58 tall. Which looked great and was only 36" wide which would save a little on lighting. After thinking about it, and this maybe silly. But I plan to add some nice bigger fish. My thoughts is that the fish would be happier in a wider tank than a taller tank? Make sence? REEF READY VS NOT DRILLED Some tanks I see have no overflow and/or drilled at the bottom. Would this become an issue? I would like to try to use the aquapod as a fuge. Couldn't I just run some PVC up and out? Your thoughts? Or would it be better to make sure to get a reef ready system and bit the bullet on a wet/dry system... SKIMMER I currently have a AquaC Remora skimmer. I should be able to reuse this right? I think it is rated to 90gallon. Thanks guys for any information....

04/23/2007, 09:15 AM	#3
rob28 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 241	My 55 gallon tall wasn't drilled but the bottom was tempered so i had the back drilled and it works fine...Just went a little larger on the piping as i had an extra 90 deg. to deal with.. __________________ When Hell Freezes Over I'll Ice Fish There TOO!!!! Current Tank Info: 55gallon,16 gall.refugium/sump 4X55W T5'S 2 false Percs,Pj Cardinal,6 line Wrasses,Green Manderine, Flame Angle,2- Purple Firefish,Lawnmower Blenny,Serpant Star,Seaba Anm., Hammer coral,Zoo's, 80 lbs Live rock/100 lbs sand

04/23/2007, 09:19 AM	#4
rob28 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 241	Oh ya.I bought all the rock in my tank from a freind that was moving away he had a 55 oceanic bowfront and the rock filled his tank where it's seems to be spread pretty thin in mine...The tanks have the same volume but mine seems to have way more room for bigger fish to swim around... __________________ When Hell Freezes Over I'll Ice Fish There TOO!!!! Current Tank Info: 55gallon,16 gall.refugium/sump 4X55W T5'S 2 false Percs,Pj Cardinal,6 line Wrasses,Green Manderine, Flame Angle,2- Purple Firefish,Lawnmower Blenny,Serpant Star,Seaba Anm., Hammer coral,Zoo's, 80 lbs Live rock/100 lbs sand

04/23/2007, 10:07 AM	#7
rob28 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 241	just the way the rock is in the tank,there seems to be more free space for fish.The bowfront had all the rock in a big pile and the fish were more out of sight behind the rock while swimming around...Personal preferance is the best way to go...Mine they seem to be in veiw as the rock is more spread out...Just my thoughts.. __________________ When Hell Freezes Over I'll Ice Fish There TOO!!!! Current Tank Info: 55gallon,16 gall.refugium/sump 4X55W T5'S 2 false Percs,Pj Cardinal,6 line Wrasses,Green Manderine, Flame Angle,2- Purple Firefish,Lawnmower Blenny,Serpant Star,Seaba Anm., Hammer coral,Zoo's, 80 lbs Live rock/100 lbs sand

04/23/2007, 11:49 AM	#10
rob28 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 241	just go with what u like...Your the one that looks at it....ENJOY IT... __________________ When Hell Freezes Over I'll Ice Fish There TOO!!!! Current Tank Info: 55gallon,16 gall.refugium/sump 4X55W T5'S 2 false Percs,Pj Cardinal,6 line Wrasses,Green Manderine, Flame Angle,2- Purple Firefish,Lawnmower Blenny,Serpant Star,Seaba Anm., Hammer coral,Zoo's, 80 lbs Live rock/100 lbs sand

04/23/2007, 09:07 AM	#2
cdangel0 Moved On Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Delaware Posts: 905	Wider is better IMO - your probably not saving that mich as you would need stronger lighting to reach the botom of the tall tank. With the wider one you could do less wattage and longer bulbs. The fish would appreciate more swimming room. I prefer drilled reef-ready tanks - easier, less chances of over-flowes I think (And I say I think becasue I have only ever had a drill tank) Skimmer should be fine.

04/23/2007, 10:01 AM	#6
ReefNewb77 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Laguna Niguel, CA Posts: 10	Everywhere I've read, wider is always better than taller. First of all, most fish swim horizontally rather than vertically. Secondly, if you get a deeper tank, you will need to get a higher wattage light for deeper penetration. (if you want corals) Just my two cents.

04/23/2007, 10:09 AM	#8
Sepeku Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 356	Repeat after me, "Wider is better". Seriously, for all the reasons previously mentioned. Also, you did not mention if you had a sump, which is what having the tank drilled for would help with. I'd go drilled even if you did not have a sump so that in the future, you could install one with no hassle. Drilled tanks are just safer in that you'd have to install a siphon without the holes. And siphons have a tendacy to fail and flood the room the tank is in.

04/23/2007, 02:19 PM	#11
cyclops23 Premium Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Milton, WI Posts: 613	i have a 55g AGA, i wish i had went with a 75g. it would cost more, but much easier to stack LR, more swimming room for the fish, etc. i have a used 30g AGA tank i use for a sump, can't get much cheaper than that. i drilled a hole in the back of the tank for the overflow to the sump. it was pretty easy. although a reef ready tank would've been nice.

04/23/2007, 02:21 PM	#12
cyclops23 Premium Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Milton, WI Posts: 613	here's a pic, overflow is top right, return is top left. the boxes are made from acrylic.

04/23/2007, 02:24 PM	#13
hndakd Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 313	i used to have a 55 gallon and the width of the tank stunk bad. I upgraded to a 90 gallon and have much more room to stack the rocks and such. also the increased width of the stand gave me ample room to upgrade my sump and such. Definitely go with drilled!

04/23/2007, 02:28 PM	#14
Z-Man07 Premium Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: New Bern, NC Posts: 256	I can agree with pretty much all of the other posters here. Especially cyclops23. I have had a 55 for a year now and I am REALLY looking forward to moving into a bigger tank. In my personal, limited, and humble experience, a 55 is difficult to aquascape. No matter how I tried, it was very difficult to avoid the commonly dreaded "rock wall." A 55 has limited visual depth, front to back, in my opinion. If you are asking for my suggestion, it is to get a tank that is at least 18" front to back. Be it a 36" long or 48" long tank. Both have good visual proportions to me. All in all, at least look into a 48" 75g or 90g. You may be satisfied with that tank for a longer period of time than a 55. FWIW, HTH, IMHO. __________________ --> Jay Z.<-- Current Tank Info: What can I say... I have a tank, but there is no water in it!

04/23/2007, 02:32 PM	#15
jjclark22 Registered Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: lawrence kansas GO Jayhawks! Posts: 80	just my input i had a 50 gallon tall and i had to use way more lighting to get light to all of my corals i switched to a 55 long and the fish have more room to swim i can spread out my corals more and they appreciate the light since its not having to go so deep. especially my leather corals

04/23/2007, 02:38 PM	#16
alexb518 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: San Mateo Posts: 514	tall v. wide: seems like everyone agrees on the wide. Drilled v. not drilled: if you don't buy one that is drilled with an overflow built in, then you're gonna have to buy an overflow box (looks ugly) and that whole setup. if you get one, for example, from AGA it will be predrilled and you'll just have to plumb it for your current tank as a fuge. remora skimmer: i've never had one, but i've heard they work great...so, you probably know better than me. 55 gallon: my two cents, you're gonna outgrow that in another year. go with a hundred. it's a lot easier to take car of than a smaller tank too.

04/24/2007, 08:01 AM	#17
iamtheone Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 59	Yeah, I would like to go big, but man just the idea on how to fill this sucker the first time...... I don't want to use city water. The only option would be to use those tap water purifiers but I think those are probably junk. I would have to get me a RO/DI filter installed I guess.