kaz
Aquarium Advice Addict
finding out if xp3 is worth the extra 30usd than the 404.
How is the your new Rena XP3 coming along?
- Thread starter kaz
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Lonewolfblue
Aquarium Advice Addict
Mine is absolutely wonderful. Maintenance is easy too. Even though it didn't need it, I did a maintenance on it just to try it, and took me less than 5 minutes. And that includes rinsing the sponges out in old tank water, and rinsing out the cannister unit, and putting it back together, priming, and plugging in. I'm really happy with my choice. 
Lonewolfblue
Aquarium Advice Addict
They say the fluval is just a little harder to open up, but other than that, it's just as good. 
I been running a Fluval for about ten years. Started with a 203 , then quickly moved up to 303 and sold the 203 because it was too small. About two years ago, the first 303 developed some stress cracks of some of the motor housing parts (clamps). Instead of repairing it, I decided to try the redesigned 304. HUGE improvement. HUGE.
I installed a Xp3 this weekend on my new 70gal corner tank. It's only been running for two days so far, but here is a comparison rundown.
Cost> In pre-purchase comparison, the pricing was close enough among the major on-line retailers as to be a non-issue. (I purchased from www.thatpetplace.com , but www.drsfostersmith.com had similarly attractive pricing). Both the Fluval and Rena were MUCH less than a comparable Eheim.
Set up> Fluval has the edge in setup. The Rena is ultimately more flexible, but at the cost of setup complexity. There are about 20 pieces in the intake/exhaust system alone. The intake tube consists of a u-tube (and incorporates the standpipe for priming), which connects to the variable-length siphon tube (four-five individual pieces), and then to the screen. Exhaust is comprised of a u-tube, and an assortment of elbows, extensions, outlets (spraybar or jet), flow control, etc. All the parts have tapered ends to allow a friction fit except a very few that snap together. All parts are opaque. Exhaust is black. Intake is a bluish charcoal. I prefer black or transparent. Fluval parts are translucent charcoal (1pc. siphon tube) and medium gray (hoses, exhaust jet, couplers). The Fluval comes with a weird convoluted hose and special tank-side couplers that I don't particularly like, but they DO work well. I just prefer things to stay "standard", so repair parts and modifications are easier (like adding an in-line heater or sterilizer). The Xp3 comes with a set 4'-5' thick walled vinyl tubing. It's kind of a frosty translucent blue. Nice tubing. The fitting on the Rena pump and accessories are all barbs. The system includes locking plastic hose clamps. Have a towel or pair of pliers handy when you install them, they are kinda sharp and hard to close tightly (a good thing, IMO). The Fluval uses the aforementioned special coupler on the tank-side accessories and uses plastic threaded compression fittings. In both filters' cases, leak tight operation is simple to achieve. Both units use captivated o-ring seals on the pump/case interface, so there is no worry about twisted or pinched seals.
Priming> Priming is a tossup. The Fluval has a priming pump, the Rena has a standpipe and a funnel. If the top back edge of your tank is hard to access, the Fluval would be easier to prime, IMO... Once set up, priming is almost a non-issue, since the siphon doesn't need to broken on either filter to perform regular cleaning.
Noise> This one is a dead tie. They are both silent enough to run in a bedroom. I've read a lot of people complaining about a noisy Rena, but they probably didn't assemble things tightly enough. Lots of places for air to enter the system... Mine is silent. (I wish I could say the same thing for my Orbit...) Both systems employ rubber feet to help dampen noise and vibration.
Maintenance> Cleanup is slightly easier on the Xp3 because of the tray handles and sponge sizes. Fluval's sponges are a bit thicker, so they take longer to flush clean. The tray dividers in the Xp3 are a nice touch. Repairs from breakage are easier to do on the Fluval, but it's also built less heavily than the Rena, so pick your poison... Both systems have a quick disconnect which includes a flow shutoff for the hose bibs, so you won't lose your siphon during cleanups. The Rena has one lever, while the Fluval uses two (one for flow, one for locking).
Flow control> With a simple control on the filter housing, Fluval has the edge in this area. RENA decided to put the valve inside the tank (yes, submerged). I prefer my tanks to look natural, not mechanical... I elected to keep the flow control out of the circuit, for appearance. Kudos to Rena for allowing this option, but the currents from the unrestricted spraybar are a bit too strong for docile fish. My Giant Danios would love it, but I intend on planting this particular tank and stocking it with more laid back breeds. I'll have to add a valve to the system. I may do that with a ball valve down by the filter or I may drill out the spraybar orifices to about 1/4" instead of the 3/16" they came at...
Filtration> Since I've only been running the system two days, I can't really comment on filtration, but the structural differences between the Fluval and the Xp3 lend me a few clues on how I expect them to differ. The Xp3 has larger trays, so contact time at a given flow should be longer in the Xp3. That will improve biological and chemical filtration efficiency. The trays in the Xp3 nest together a bit tighter than in the Fluval. In addition, the top tray in the Xp3 seals against the pump housing with an o-ring and the top tray cover is MUCH more rigid in the Xp3. These things all mean lower bypass from the Xp3, which means cleaner water. Media choices for either system are practically limitless.
....In my Fluval, I use the foam pre-filters and ceramic hex-tube for large particle removal. For biological, I use porous ceramic tubes. My final stage is floss for a nice polish.
....In the Rena Xp3, I am using the 20 and 30 ppi foam for mechanical, 40 FilStar Bio-Chem stars (enough for 200 gallons supposedly) for biological, activated carbon, and finally the supplied polishing pad.
....Both filters include the foam pads. The Rena also includes a Carbon pad.
....The Rena media selection seems really nice. Lot's of rechargable resins (similar to water softern resins, but specifically to remove phosphate, nitrites, ammonia, etc.) Instead of throwing them away, you just recharge them.
Appearance> Now, this category may not matter to many of you with enclosed equipment cabinets, but some may care. It is for them that I include my impressions about appearance... The Rena has got cleaner-looking plumbing connections, while the fluval incorporates several bulky fittings that clutter the look on top of the filter. The inlet/outlet of the Xp3 swivel to allow a graceful curve of the hose, while Fluval hoes juts straight out the top. The colors are pleasingly neutral for both systems. The shape of the Rena is a bit more angular than the case of the Fluval, which is composed with many more curves. Some may find the angularity either complimentary or detractful from the style of their other furnishings. The Xp3 is nicer looking unit, IMO.
Misc comments...I wish filter companies would include a power cord socket right on the motor/pump housing. I don't know about your tank's equipment "room", but mine is a dark rat's nest of wires/tubes, timers, bottles, and odd discards from past experiments gone bad. Having to trace a power cord from the pump to the socket is irritating. Fumble around in the dark and bump a timer, and all of a sudden your ten minute cleaning turns into a thirty minute job once you go find a flashlight, come back, find the timer you bumped, re-set it, and get back to the cleaning... Now, once you unplugged the cord, you have to pull it out and wrap it up, so you don't trip on it, on the way to the tub/sink. Once there, you kneel down and put your knee RIGHT on the plug end, which sets off a tirade of not-so-nice words and "well-wishes" for many innocent parties. Once cleanup is done, and you managed to keep the cord out of the way, you have to make the trip back without tripping, fumble around in the dark again while missing all those timers and finicky plumbing to plug it back in.
Why not put a $3 gasket-ed socket on the case and make everyone's life easier? I'd gladly pay the extra!
Bottom Line?
I can easily recommend a Fluval 204, 304, 404. They filter great, run silent, and are durable in normal use. I've seen a few x05 models out there, but I don't know what the changes are. At a glance, they appear the same as the x04 series.
I haven't lived with the Xp3 long enough to stand behind it as solidly as I do the Fluval, but my experience so far has been excellent. So far, I am VERY pleased with the purchase and would not hesitate to recommend one.
Ultimately, It's a toss up. Look at the pros and cons of each and pick the one that fits your specific needs best. Or, If you find one on sale, pick it up.
I installed a Xp3 this weekend on my new 70gal corner tank. It's only been running for two days so far, but here is a comparison rundown.
Cost> In pre-purchase comparison, the pricing was close enough among the major on-line retailers as to be a non-issue. (I purchased from www.thatpetplace.com , but www.drsfostersmith.com had similarly attractive pricing). Both the Fluval and Rena were MUCH less than a comparable Eheim.
Set up> Fluval has the edge in setup. The Rena is ultimately more flexible, but at the cost of setup complexity. There are about 20 pieces in the intake/exhaust system alone. The intake tube consists of a u-tube (and incorporates the standpipe for priming), which connects to the variable-length siphon tube (four-five individual pieces), and then to the screen. Exhaust is comprised of a u-tube, and an assortment of elbows, extensions, outlets (spraybar or jet), flow control, etc. All the parts have tapered ends to allow a friction fit except a very few that snap together. All parts are opaque. Exhaust is black. Intake is a bluish charcoal. I prefer black or transparent. Fluval parts are translucent charcoal (1pc. siphon tube) and medium gray (hoses, exhaust jet, couplers). The Fluval comes with a weird convoluted hose and special tank-side couplers that I don't particularly like, but they DO work well. I just prefer things to stay "standard", so repair parts and modifications are easier (like adding an in-line heater or sterilizer). The Xp3 comes with a set 4'-5' thick walled vinyl tubing. It's kind of a frosty translucent blue. Nice tubing. The fitting on the Rena pump and accessories are all barbs. The system includes locking plastic hose clamps. Have a towel or pair of pliers handy when you install them, they are kinda sharp and hard to close tightly (a good thing, IMO). The Fluval uses the aforementioned special coupler on the tank-side accessories and uses plastic threaded compression fittings. In both filters' cases, leak tight operation is simple to achieve. Both units use captivated o-ring seals on the pump/case interface, so there is no worry about twisted or pinched seals.
Priming> Priming is a tossup. The Fluval has a priming pump, the Rena has a standpipe and a funnel. If the top back edge of your tank is hard to access, the Fluval would be easier to prime, IMO... Once set up, priming is almost a non-issue, since the siphon doesn't need to broken on either filter to perform regular cleaning.
Noise> This one is a dead tie. They are both silent enough to run in a bedroom. I've read a lot of people complaining about a noisy Rena, but they probably didn't assemble things tightly enough. Lots of places for air to enter the system... Mine is silent. (I wish I could say the same thing for my Orbit...) Both systems employ rubber feet to help dampen noise and vibration.
Maintenance> Cleanup is slightly easier on the Xp3 because of the tray handles and sponge sizes. Fluval's sponges are a bit thicker, so they take longer to flush clean. The tray dividers in the Xp3 are a nice touch. Repairs from breakage are easier to do on the Fluval, but it's also built less heavily than the Rena, so pick your poison... Both systems have a quick disconnect which includes a flow shutoff for the hose bibs, so you won't lose your siphon during cleanups. The Rena has one lever, while the Fluval uses two (one for flow, one for locking).
Flow control> With a simple control on the filter housing, Fluval has the edge in this area. RENA decided to put the valve inside the tank (yes, submerged). I prefer my tanks to look natural, not mechanical... I elected to keep the flow control out of the circuit, for appearance. Kudos to Rena for allowing this option, but the currents from the unrestricted spraybar are a bit too strong for docile fish. My Giant Danios would love it, but I intend on planting this particular tank and stocking it with more laid back breeds. I'll have to add a valve to the system. I may do that with a ball valve down by the filter or I may drill out the spraybar orifices to about 1/4" instead of the 3/16" they came at...
Filtration> Since I've only been running the system two days, I can't really comment on filtration, but the structural differences between the Fluval and the Xp3 lend me a few clues on how I expect them to differ. The Xp3 has larger trays, so contact time at a given flow should be longer in the Xp3. That will improve biological and chemical filtration efficiency. The trays in the Xp3 nest together a bit tighter than in the Fluval. In addition, the top tray in the Xp3 seals against the pump housing with an o-ring and the top tray cover is MUCH more rigid in the Xp3. These things all mean lower bypass from the Xp3, which means cleaner water. Media choices for either system are practically limitless.
....In my Fluval, I use the foam pre-filters and ceramic hex-tube for large particle removal. For biological, I use porous ceramic tubes. My final stage is floss for a nice polish.
....In the Rena Xp3, I am using the 20 and 30 ppi foam for mechanical, 40 FilStar Bio-Chem stars (enough for 200 gallons supposedly) for biological, activated carbon, and finally the supplied polishing pad.
....Both filters include the foam pads. The Rena also includes a Carbon pad.
....The Rena media selection seems really nice. Lot's of rechargable resins (similar to water softern resins, but specifically to remove phosphate, nitrites, ammonia, etc.) Instead of throwing them away, you just recharge them.
Appearance> Now, this category may not matter to many of you with enclosed equipment cabinets, but some may care. It is for them that I include my impressions about appearance... The Rena has got cleaner-looking plumbing connections, while the fluval incorporates several bulky fittings that clutter the look on top of the filter. The inlet/outlet of the Xp3 swivel to allow a graceful curve of the hose, while Fluval hoes juts straight out the top. The colors are pleasingly neutral for both systems. The shape of the Rena is a bit more angular than the case of the Fluval, which is composed with many more curves. Some may find the angularity either complimentary or detractful from the style of their other furnishings. The Xp3 is nicer looking unit, IMO.
Misc comments...I wish filter companies would include a power cord socket right on the motor/pump housing. I don't know about your tank's equipment "room", but mine is a dark rat's nest of wires/tubes, timers, bottles, and odd discards from past experiments gone bad. Having to trace a power cord from the pump to the socket is irritating. Fumble around in the dark and bump a timer, and all of a sudden your ten minute cleaning turns into a thirty minute job once you go find a flashlight, come back, find the timer you bumped, re-set it, and get back to the cleaning... Now, once you unplugged the cord, you have to pull it out and wrap it up, so you don't trip on it, on the way to the tub/sink. Once there, you kneel down and put your knee RIGHT on the plug end, which sets off a tirade of not-so-nice words and "well-wishes" for many innocent parties. Once cleanup is done, and you managed to keep the cord out of the way, you have to make the trip back without tripping, fumble around in the dark again while missing all those timers and finicky plumbing to plug it back in.
Why not put a $3 gasket-ed socket on the case and make everyone's life easier? I'd gladly pay the extra!
Bottom Line?
I can easily recommend a Fluval 204, 304, 404. They filter great, run silent, and are durable in normal use. I've seen a few x05 models out there, but I don't know what the changes are. At a glance, they appear the same as the x04 series.
I haven't lived with the Xp3 long enough to stand behind it as solidly as I do the Fluval, but my experience so far has been excellent. So far, I am VERY pleased with the purchase and would not hesitate to recommend one.
Ultimately, It's a toss up. Look at the pros and cons of each and pick the one that fits your specific needs best. Or, If you find one on sale, pick it up.
Lonewolfblue
Aquarium Advice Addict
Great review. Thanks a bunch......
kaz
Aquarium Advice Addict
I want to thank all of you for being so helpful and taking the time. I think lonewolf and cg sold me for the xp3
Lonewolfblue
Aquarium Advice Addict
My next project is going to add an inline heater 300W to the output of my XP3 when I begin the setup of my 75G planted. Eventually I'd like to maybe get an eheim so I can compare those to the XP3. But that's later when I add another tank, darn MTS anyways, lol. 
I've also got the 300W Hydor ETH in-line heater. The lines on both the Xp3 and Fluval 304/404 are 5/8" ID... It uses compression fittings, but the tubing on the Xp3 is pretty thick wall. The nuts on the Hydor may not allow the tubing through...I haven't tried it. This heater is running on my Fluval. If the nuts are too small, you could remove them or switch to thinner tubing for the Xp3.
The heater performs exquisitely. Temps are right on all the time and no stratification or in-tank clutter.
The heater performs exquisitely. Temps are right on all the time and no stratification or in-tank clutter.
Lonewolfblue
Aquarium Advice Addict
The XP3 you can do the 200W and 300W, they use the same size fitting. It's 5/8" (16mm). I noticed the 200W also has a 1/2" model as well, which is too small.
kaz
Aquarium Advice Addict
ok I have no idea what you guys are talking about with the heater etc since I am a noob at this can you guys visualize it so I have knowledge and might be interested in doing it for my 60g?
fishyrican
Aquarium Advice FINatic
Here is the Hydor ETH heater:
http://www.bigalsonline.com/catalog/product.xml?product_id=32334;category_id=3231;pcid1=;pcid2=
By the way, great review!
http://www.bigalsonline.com/catalog/product.xml?product_id=32334;category_id=3231;pcid1=;pcid2=
By the way, great review!
Lonewolfblue
Aquarium Advice Addict
Basically, you find where you want to install it on the output hose from the filter, cut it there and place the filter inline with the output, so the output goes from the filter, through the first hose, through the heater, then through the second hose to the output in the tank.
Lonewolfblue
Aquarium Advice Addict
It will be hidden behind your tank, and not in the tank.
I just bought two Hydor 300 watt heaters and two Filstar XP3 filters for a 125 gallon tank, which is on order and suppose to be in next week. I have a question regarding the Hydor heater, compression fitting and assembly. The instructions were not very clear, so please excuse my ingorance here. Insert the tubing over the heater up to the compression fitting threads and I'm assuming you back the compression fitting down over the tubing to compress the tubing against the heater's fitting? Is that correct? I have used compression fittings on copper pipes, but plumbing has ring to compress down on the pipe, where as the Hydor does not. I know this is a rather stupid question, but it was not clear in my instructions. Thanks and again sorry about my ignorance.
TankGirl
Aquarium Advice Addict
I have had an XP3 for 3-4 years (I forget!) and I think it is a wonderful filter. I need to put it to the 8-10 year test before I really tell you what I think, lol!
For that, Eheim gets my vote, though I am talking about the "Classic" series and those are a minor pain to maintain. When you are in the hobby for a good while, filter longevity really starts to matter more.
For that, Eheim gets my vote, though I am talking about the "Classic" series and those are a minor pain to maintain. When you are in the hobby for a good while, filter longevity really starts to matter more.
Similar threads
