SWC xtreme 120 cone Skimmer

matt frizz · 05/03/2010, 02:12 AM

I have a 55 Breeder that I'm in the process of setting up and I'm planning on buying the SWC Xtreme 120 Cone skimmer. I've heard that it's slightly better than the reef octopus in it's range but are there any other skimmers in the price range that are more efficient or a better design?

The SWC seems pretty solid and has great reviews on nano-reef but I want to make zero mistakes with this tank and not waste any money on sub-par equipment.

Also if I decide to upgrade to a 75 G in the distant future I think that this skimmer would also work pretty well if modestly stocked.

stanlalee · 05/03/2010, 06:32 AM

I would go with the 160 myself. I know the given rating is high (90g heavy to 150g light stocked) but it performs well on my 30g/10g sump (never sits idle and prodruces way more than my appropriate sized 4" body octopus). Plus the modest 6.5" base, 3" neck suggest its not innappropriately sized for a 55-75g display ( I would DEFINATELY use the 160 for a 75g).

mfinn · 05/03/2010, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt frizz

but are there any other skimmers in the price range that are more efficient or a better design?

The SWC seems pretty solid and has great reviews on nano-reef but I want to make zero mistakes with this tank and not waste any money on sub-par equipment.

The cone skimmers are the latest, greatest, in design and your not going to get a better skimmer in this price range.

gldnegle76 · 05/03/2010, 09:11 AM

I agree with stanlalee. I'd go with the 160, especially if you may upgrade in the future. Mine is skimming well with my 46gal/10gal sump setup.

matt frizz · 05/05/2010, 03:54 AM

I thought that the 160 may be overkill but that was my original idea. Somebody on another forum said not to get it because it would be too much. If I can afford it then I will definitely swing it.

mfinn · 05/05/2010, 07:48 AM

You won't be disappointed.

stanlalee · 05/05/2010, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt frizz

I thought that the 160 may be overkill but that was my original idea. Somebody on another forum said not to get it because it would be too much. If I can afford it then I will definitely swing it.

yeah its not too much. for whatever reason there's a perceived grandiosity about this skimmer I guess based on advertised numbers. the numbers speak for themselves. 6.5"ish base, 20"ish tall with pump inside skimmer, 700lph air, 3" neck......for a cone does not suggest it cant work on smaller tanks, quite the opposite actually as this is a pretty small cone compared to what else is out there now (XP2000, alpha 170 cone). A supposedly octopus XP1000SSS cone in the works or eshopps economy would be the only comparatively sized cones out their.

BlueStag · 05/06/2010, 10:19 PM

55 gallons seems to be right at the cusp of the two skimmers. If your planning on upgrading anyways, I'd go with the 160 Cone. The 120 Cone will skim up to a 55 gallon fine, but it's nice to have a little wiggle room for overfeeding and stocking. I've seen the 160 Cone on a 40 gallon at a LFS, and it worked great with lots of dark skimmate. You'll be able to grow tank wise with the skimmer.

05/03/2010, 02:12 AM	#1
matt frizz Registered Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 66	SWC xtreme 120 cone Skimmer I have a 55 Breeder that I'm in the process of setting up and I'm planning on buying the SWC Xtreme 120 Cone skimmer. I've heard that it's slightly better than the reef octopus in it's range but are there any other skimmers in the price range that are more efficient or a better design? The SWC seems pretty solid and has great reviews on nano-reef but I want to make zero mistakes with this tank and not waste any money on sub-par equipment. Also if I decide to upgrade to a 75 G in the distant future I think that this skimmer would also work pretty well if modestly stocked.

05/05/2010, 07:48 AM	#6
mfinn Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Olympia. WA. Posts: 8,648	You won't be disappointed. __________________ 240 gallon soft coral tank 50 gallon lps tank

05/06/2010, 10:19 PM	#8
BlueStag Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Huntington Beach Posts: 1,054	55 gallons seems to be right at the cusp of the two skimmers. If your planning on upgrading anyways, I'd go with the 160 Cone. The 120 Cone will skim up to a 55 gallon fine, but it's nice to have a little wiggle room for overfeeding and stocking. I've seen the 160 Cone on a 40 gallon at a LFS, and it worked great with lots of dark skimmate. You'll be able to grow tank wise with the skimmer. __________________ Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts Current Tank Info: 180 Starphire, SWC 250A Cone skimmer, 14k 250MH, Tunze wavebox

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Super Reef Octopus XP 5000 internal cone vs. SWC XTREME 300A Protein Skimmer	brainchild24	Lighting, Filtration & Other Equipment	9	08/11/2013 12:08 AM
SWC Extreme 120 Cone Club	mordibv	Lighting, Filtration & Other Equipment	8	03/14/2010 08:37 PM
FS Eheim 1260 (practically new) and SWC Xtreme 200 Protein Skimmer	jimmyc	Greater San Francisco Bay Area Reef Forum	3	01/01/2010 07:49 PM

05/03/2010, 06:32 AM	#2
stanlalee Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: hampton roads, va Posts: 1,799	I would go with the 160 myself. I know the given rating is high (90g heavy to 150g light stocked) but it performs well on my 30g/10g sump (never sits idle and prodruces way more than my appropriate sized 4" body octopus). Plus the modest 6.5" base, 3" neck suggest its not innappropriately sized for a 55-75g display ( I would DEFINATELY use the 160 for a 75g).

05/03/2010, 09:11 AM	#4
gldnegle76 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Madison, MS Posts: 517	I agree with stanlalee. I'd go with the 160, especially if you may upgrade in the future. Mine is skimming well with my 46gal/10gal sump setup.

05/05/2010, 03:54 AM	#5
matt frizz Registered Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 66	I thought that the 160 may be overkill but that was my original idea. Somebody on another forum said not to get it because it would be too much. If I can afford it then I will definitely swing it.