SRO 2000 vs SRO 3000 or XP2000

[iceh]

So I am looking to upgrade my skimmer for my 120g. I currently have a
Bubble magus nac07 from my prev tank on it.
I'm looking at the SRO 2000, 3000 and the XP2000. Not sure if the 3000 is too
big for my setup - bioload will be decently heavy - not many large fish, mostly many wrasses and anthias with sps being dominant. I have a 40 br as a sump.
Any tips or suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.

[skh]

I think most people would recommend the SRO 2000 INT or XP for that tank size. The XP has a larger neck than the INT so you'd probably want to stock and feed heavily for that one to be best.

[iceh]

Originally Posted by skh

I think most people would recommend the SRO 2000 INT or XP for that tank size. The XP has a larger neck than the INT so you'd probably want to stock and feed heavily for that one to be best.

So if I go with the XP I should be safe for a heavy bioload and vodka?

[t4zalews]

I'd go XP

[Brwestern]

Here's an email I got straight from coralvue about differences between 2000 int and xp

The only difference is what the cone offers as far as performance. It allows for a more stable skimming at lower bioloads/smaller tanks, slightly better pump performance due to less head pressure and a bit more fine tuning.* Asside from that there isn't much of a difference between the two Skimmers.

Jeremy Rykiel
Vue Technology
CoralVue Lighting & Octopus Aquarium Products
(985)781-9078 * \ ** www.CoralVue.com

[skh]

Originally Posted by Brwestern

Here's an email I got straight from coralvue about differences between 2000 int and xp

The only difference is what the cone offers as far as performance. It allows for a more stable skimming at lower bioloads/smaller tanks, slightly better pump performance due to less head pressure and a bit more fine tuning.* Asside from that there isn't much of a difference between the two Skimmers.

Jeremy Rykiel
Vue Technology
CoralVue Lighting & Octopus Aquarium Products
(985)781-9078 * \ ** www.CoralVue.com

That's very interesting. No mention of the fact that the INT has a 3.25" neck and the XP has a 4" neck. Mojo has had both, I think, and his take is that both are good skimmers and work well, but that the XP is suited for bigger tanks due to the wider neck.

[milkman55]

I have the SRO 2000 INT on my system for the past year. Includes a 120 gal, 40 gal, 45 gal, and 75 gal sump. Works great and steady skim production.

[arnoldanderio12]

I looked everywhere for the audio file we used, can't seem to find it let me check around some more

[a.browning]

I would do the SRO-2000. The 3000 would be too big and you may not have very consistant skimming. Also, the XP model really isn't any better than the regular one. I believe I read this straight from Coralvue at one point. Even if there is less turbulance in a cone shape, a cone will have less water volume in it than a non cone of the same footprint.. so really the cone will be a little less efficient in my opinion. I use a SRO-1000 on my tank and I have nothing but good things to say. I did considerable research between the two styles, and found the non-cone to be the better option, and will save you some good money.

[MikeC120]

iceh what skimmer did you end up with and are you happy with it?

[toofrigginswt]

I'm not the OP but I personally was in the same scenario. I ended up with the SRO 2000 INT. I wanted the XP but I am a cheapas$ so I didn't fork out the extra hundred for it. A lot of people say that you can't really go wrong with either of them.

[MikeC120]

Originally Posted by toofrigginswt

I'm not the OP but I personally was in the same scenario. I ended up with the SRO 2000 INT. I wanted the XP but I am a cheapas$ so I didn't fork out the extra hundred for it. A lot of people say that you can't really go wrong with either of them.

Thanks