Help with Tank Size Selection

[Bravesphan95]

Need help deciding…looking to upgrade from my IM Lagoon 50 AIO to either the IM 150 Ext,170 Ext, or 200 Ext. The room will accommodate any of these tanks.
Tank dimensions for each below with my thoughts

1. 48x36x20 on the 150
Is the extra 6 inches front to back worth it? Do you have trouble reaching the back for maintenance? For those of you that have the 150 do you wish the tank was longer?

2. 59x30x22 on the 170
This comes with the bigger sump (RFS 50) and an extra foot in length

3. 71x30x22 on the 200
Main difference here is cost in comparison to 170 at roughly an additional $400. So is the extra foot worth the $400?
I’m really intrigued by 36” front to back on the 150 however I realize more water volume also plays a part and does it really move the needle 36” vs 30” on the front to back dimensions in your opinion’s.

I look forward to the community feedback. Thanks

 

[Timfish]

Bigger is always better!

 

[Bravesphan95]

Bigger is always better!

When looking at the 150 vs 170 both tanks are roughly the same in surface area sq/ft so really comes down to shape of the tank...square (4x3) vs rectangle (5x2.5). What would you go with?

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

When looking at the 150 vs 170 both tanks are roughly the same in surface area sq/ft so really comes down to shape of the tank...square (4x3) vs rectangle (5x2.5). What would you go with?

I'd go with the 170 (the 5x2.5).

 

[mrpontiac80]

I’d go with the 200 ext. but I prefer an extra foot of length over 6” of extra depth.

 

[Tcook]

I would go with the 200 no question. I have a 48” tank and wish i had the extra length. Are they still running the sale?

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

I'd go with the 170 (the 5x2.5).

Edit: between the 150 and 170, I'd choose the 170. Unless you'll be placing the tank in a spot where you really want the extra depth for 270 degree viewing, the longer the tank, the more sticking options you have.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

I would go with the 200 no question. I have a 48” tank and wish i had the extra length. Are they still running the sale?

I just looked and everything has a sale price...
Also, they now have the 170 with an internal overflow which I don't believe was an option when I was looking...

 

[El Reeflero]

Biggest is best. If you do anything smaller, you'll regret it down the road - all reefers would! Though my next thought is go as big as your partner (if any) will allow without giving you endless grief!

 

[bakbay]

Go as big as you can to fit into the space (knock down walls if you have to). Once you’ve outgrown that space, upgrade to a bigger house with a bigger space!

It will cost you more than $400 later on if you decide to go bigger. We’ve all been here before…lol

 

[Bravesphan95]

Biggest is best. If you do anything smaller, you'll regret it down the road - all reefers would! Though my next thought is go as big as your partner (if any) will allow without giving you endless grief!

Haha my wife is already giving me grief. I sold my previous tank (standard 180) a few years ago when our kids got busy with their activities and in the past year got the AIO lagoon 50. I really miss having a sump...

 

[hart24601]

I went with the 150 and love it. The 36” depth is a big change over 30” deep and the 4’ size is all the larger I want. Space and cost were not an issue, I don’t want a tank over 4’ long. Sold my custom 6’ rimless years ago.

the space your putting it in also matters, can tape off the various sizes and see how it looks.

just remember it’s what you like. I am a huge believer of bigger is not better and think it’s actually the demise of many reef tanks, the maintenance and upkeep gets overwhelming. You can make a post about tank size and get so many blanket comments of “go big!” which I feel is one of the worst bits of advise in the hobby. Of course this isn’t the case for everyone and might not be for you either, but really it comes down to what you like.

 

[Spare time]

I went with the 150 and love it. The 36” depth is a big change over 30” deep and the 4’ size is all the larger I want. Space and cost were not an issue, I don’t want a tank over 4’ long. Sold my custom 6’ rimless years ago.

the space your putting it in also matters, can tape off the various sizes and see how it looks.

just remember it’s what you like. I am a huge believer of bigger is not better and think it’s actually the demise of many reef tanks, the maintenance and upkeep gets overwhelming. You can make a post about tank size and get so many blanket comments of “go big!” which I feel is one of the worst bits of advise in the hobby. Of course this isn’t the case for everyone and might not be for you either, but really it comes down to what you like.

Bigger = less water maintenance. Its not really a debate as the water simply requires less frequent or drastic changes to keep the values steady in larger tanks. In smaller tanks, you have to test more, dose more, do more water changes, swap out media more, etc. Larger tanks require less of every kind of maintenance other than glass cleaning due to more area. I agree the OP should go with whatever they like better, but it really isn't true that a larger tank is more maintenance.

 

[vetteguy53081]

Need help deciding…looking to upgrade from my IM Lagoon 50 AIO to either the IM 150 Ext,170 Ext, or 200 Ext. The room will accommodate any of these tanks.
Tank dimensions for each below with my thoughts

1. 48x36x20 on the 150
Is the extra 6 inches front to back worth it? Do you have trouble reaching the back for maintenance? For those of you that have the 150 do you wish the tank was longer?

2. 59x30x22 on the 170
This comes with the bigger sump (RFS 50) and an extra foot in length

3. 71x30x22 on the 200
Main difference here is cost in comparison to 170 at roughly an additional $400. So is the extra foot worth the $400?
I’m really intrigued by 36” front to back on the 150 however I realize more water volume also plays a part and does it really move the needle 36” vs 30” on the front to back dimensions in your opinion’s.

I look forward to the community feedback. Thanks

For an extra $400, go with the 72" tank. I only run big tanks and it will offer more room for livestock, reduced maintenance periods and allow you to grow into the added volume. With a 48" you will quickly fill it and find yourself regretting not getting larger in a few short months.

 

[hart24601]

Bigger = less water maintenance. It’s not really a debate as the water simply requires less frequent or drastic changes to keep the values steady in larger tanks. In smaller tanks, you have to test more, dose more, do more water changes, swap out media more, etc.

I will say bigger is generally more stable, also harder to correct issues should something gets off with the age old standard “reset” of a large W/C. I don’t want this to become a larger tank debate, for those who dream of a 600g+ nothing will change those mind bigger is better. For me and few others it’s a nightmare. I don’t agree that you need to do more on a smaller tank, your example is more just neglecting the larger one lol

I would take a 40-60g reef over a 200g any day, in fact I wouldn’t even set up a 200g unless it was fish only. I have owned both and more over 20 years plus and will not own a reef that large again.

 

[hart24601]

For an extra $400, go with the 72" tank. I only run big tanks and it will offer more room for livestock, reduced maintenance periods and allow you to grow into the added volume. With a 48" you will quickly fill it and find yourself regretting not getting larger in a few short months.

If that is the OP’s dream of a larger tank then yes, makes sense. However it’s also possible they will regret 72” in a few short months.

I know more than a few local reefers that got the biggest tank they could and failed and left the hobby, the maintenance and expense of the large tank drove them out. I truly think they would still be in the hobby if they had gotten smaller systems. Just depends on the person.

 

[Bravesphan95]

If that is the OP’s dream of a larger tank then yes, makes sense. However it’s also possible they will regret 72” in a few short months.

I know more than a few local reefers that got the biggest tank they could and failed and left the hobby, the maintenance and expense of the large tank drove them out. I truly think they would still be in the hobby if they had gotten smaller systems. Just depends on the person.

I previously had a standard 180 (72x24) and while I enjoyed the tank life got busy with the kids and ultimately the tank was neglected and sold. Now that I'm back in the market I've noticed a trend towards the deeper 30" front to back tanks with manufacturers such as Waterbox/Innovative marine similar to the old Marineland Deep Dimension but shallower.

However, I believe Innovative Marine is the only manufacturer offering a 36" front to back without going custom. Just wondering if the 150 tank looks squatty due to the 20" height in the room and it's hard to get a feel through pictures without seeing the tank in person.

While the other choices (170 and 200) fit into the more traditional rectangle footprint but with the height at 22" so I'm stuck with deciding either length or depth I've taped off the dimensions and still can't decide LOL thus trying to get a feel for others opinions.

 

[vetteguy53081]

If that is the OP’s dream of a larger tank then yes, makes sense. However it’s also possible they will regret 72” in a few short months.

I know more than a few local reefers that got the biggest tank they could and failed and left the hobby, the maintenance and expense of the large tank drove them out. I truly think they would still be in the hobby if they had gotten smaller systems. Just depends on the person.

With the number of persons constantly upgrading to larger systems, not sure where there are regrets. Often size is based on ones budget-desire- space available and stocking plans. Its a matter of preference with no set criteria desired.
Nothing worse than pouring $400-600 into a smaller tank and wanting to upgrade to have to sell it for $200 or less.

 

[PatW]

OK. My tank is 72 by 36 by 27. Reaching the back is a bit hard but only the back. The height of the tank is more of an issue (being an orangutan would be an advantage for reefing).

I think you could access the 48 by 36 by 20 OK. The extra depth is nice and remember, you will not have stuff right up against the back. The depth is good because it gives considerable scope for landscaping.

But I think the other two tanks are better options. The 59 would be better for tangs and the 71 better yet.

Is the 71 ”worth it?”. I guess it depends on your budget and your goals. “Worth” is a value judgment and as such embedded in the objectives, values and resources of the individual. For me, I would go with the 71. But I am not you.

 

[hart24601]

I personally love the depth of 36”. My friend got the same tank after seeing mine. I don’t think it’s squatty but that’s just me.

Build Thread - Innovative Marine 150 EXT with a 6 Foot Frag Tank

Are still just using Kalk to keep up with demands? Would it be possible to get a list of equipment you use for this system? I'm using a combination of Kalk and ATI essentials pro. Kalk alone isn't enough to keep up with demand. Display Lighting: 2x Reefi Duo Extremes Flow: 2x Tunze Stream 3...

www.reef2reef.com