135 gallon vs 120 gallon [Archive] - Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board

Dresden

10-30-2002, 08:36 PM

I have an option to buy either

135g 72"x18"x24" comes with full cabinet /w 2 doors. Nothing else

or..

120g 60"x24"x18" comes /w 200-400$ live rock no cabinet or stand

roughly the same price. anyone have any size opinions? Live rock doesn't sway me though.

Currently running 55 gallon 36"x12"x22"
Niger Trigger, Lunar wrasse, yellow tailed damsel

Delphinus

10-30-2002, 09:02 PM

Go with the 120. The 24" front-to-back dimension will pay you so many divedends you can't imagine. The larger your tank breadth, the exponentially more aquascaping possibilities. Very often with 18" or less you tend to get a brick wall of live rock piled up against the back pane. At 24" you can start getting more into a 3d reef, plus have an open area in the back. You could probably get into creating larger grottos and lagoonal subareas. Anyways there are my $0.02 worth...

wayner

10-30-2002, 09:14 PM

Agree with Tony, If this is gonna be a full blown reef, the 24" width will make for some nice aquascaping.

Dresden

10-30-2002, 09:19 PM

interesting thanks very much so far. Luv to hear all opinions

Dresden

10-30-2002, 09:24 PM

how might the sizes affect the fish type? I hear triggers like a far distance to swim.

Delphinus

10-30-2002, 09:30 PM

Wayne brings up a good point that I forget to temper my comments with. If your interest is a bigger swim area for your fish, then the 135g may be the way to go. A 72"x18" footprint would make an awesome FOWLR tank. It's just that if your interest is "reef" then the 120g is the way to go, for the reasons stated.

Dresden

10-30-2002, 10:57 PM

doh i appologize the 120 tank demensions are 42"x24"x30"

i had the wrong paper in front of me. Changes things i assume

Aquattro

10-30-2002, 11:22 PM

Depends on your intentions. If your going reef, wider front to back is important. Fish only would probably enjoy the longer tank.

Delphinus

10-31-2002, 12:30 AM

Nope, the change of dimension doesn't change my opinions. 8) The 120 is still the way to go if you want "reef" (the front-to-back dimension is golden .... ), but the 135 is the way to go if you want "big swimming area for fish." :)

StirCrazy

10-31-2002, 01:36 AM

is 1 foot realy going to matter or are we just pushing the length for a tang even bigger now? I think the 120 will be way better than the 135 from the front to back alone.. I have the 24" fron to back in my tank and I don't know what I would have doen in a 18" tank..

Steve

Aquattro

10-31-2002, 01:56 AM

I think one foot matters a lot to bigger fish. I've had triggers and they loved swimming the length of the tank. If it's fish only, the right tank would be the longer one. Maybe the owner has to get more creative in rockscaping, but the fish would prefer the length.

EmilyB

10-31-2002, 03:15 AM

Having a 120g with lots of fish including tangs and a trigger, I'd go the 24" width regardless :D As Tony said, you can do an awesome rock structure in the middle (thank you Jon :wink: ) with swim-thrus, and the fish can swim around, over, under.

Just my own personal observations, and comparing to the fish swimming the extra two feet in my larger tank without this "width" option as much.

If you decide to go reef later, the lighting will be cheaper as well.... :lol:

Dresden

10-31-2002, 05:22 AM

It seems i will be going with the 120g regardless. After much discussion with the 135 gallon owner, his demensions for the tank seems to have matched my friend kris's tank at 105g. It seems he had his messurements down wrong and it is actually a 105 gallon.
Thanx for all your help I will keep you posted on the result of the tank.

120 g

42"x24"x30"

Acro

10-31-2002, 05:33 AM

FYI

L X W X H / 231 = Gal.

Which makes the 120 a 130 and your 55 a 41
and now the 135's only a 105. :roll:

Dresden

10-31-2002, 05:57 AM

hmm thats a good for the new tank then :D

bad for my current tank :(

so in the end :)

Troy F

10-31-2002, 11:26 PM

Jamie = coral guru and mathematical genius! :)

I like the wider tank myself but my opinion for any of the bigger fish would be to go with a 6' tank if possible. I chose a 5'x24.5"x24.5" tank and according to the formula; my 155gal tank is a 155.90909090909gal tank :shock: (why couldn't they just add that extra eensy bit to make a 156 :roll: ) , if I could do it over (mulligan), I'd go with a 180gal for the extra swimming length. JMO

Acro

10-31-2002, 11:44 PM

Troy= smart a$$ :lol:

So anyways, how much would they have needed to add to make your 155.90909090909gal a 156 gal?

Troy F

10-31-2002, 11:58 PM

Ha :D I dunno, your the math expert :P

Troy F

11-01-2002, 12:10 AM

Actually, if they'd made it .03499 inches longer I'd have myself a 156gal tank :D

Cheap bastards!

PS: that would actually give me a 156.0000118939393939393939gal tank and I don't think I could afford the extra money on water changes, never mind the eye dropper.

Acro

11-01-2002, 12:18 AM

Jamie passes the math expert torch to Troy. I'm geussing you'd start you speach something like this...

I couldn't have done it with out my...Caculator..... 8)

naesco

11-01-2002, 01:17 AM

I agree with the comment that if you are doing reef with the odd reef fish, length in not relavent.
If, as I suspect, you enjoy larger fish in your reef, get a longer tank.