Eheim Classic 2213 - too much for a 2' aquarium???

[Desmond Wong]

Hi,

I was wondering if the Eheim Classic 2213 would be too much for my new
aquarium?

The 2 foot tank I have will hold approx 65L of water (approx 17 gallons). I
was considering the eheim Classic 2213 or the Eheim Professional 2222
canister filter.

I already have had a retailer tell me they will not sell me a Professional
as it would be too much flow for the tank.

At the moment I have a 30L (approx 8 gallon) tank with two filters running,
one is 380L/H and the other is 400L/H turnover.

Could I ask for some expert advice? I have been told to stay away from the
Eheim ECCO, the gears in them seem to wear out quite quickly I have been
told by several retailers, hence why they are hard to find for me.

Regards,
Des.

[Cris]

Yes, it's too much flow for that size tank unless your building a
marine reef tank. Sure, you could adjust the flow down with valves,
but you'd just be spending a load of cash for more filter than you
need. I think the best filter for that size tank is a power filter
with a biowheel. You want to turn over the tank volume no more than 3
times an hour.

Another thing to consider is what fish you'll be housing with this
filter. Some are messier fish that require more filtration than
others. Some fish require a slower flow that they won't have to fight
against.

Cris

On Mon, 17 May 2004 23:21:15 +1000, "Desmond Wong"
> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I was wondering if the Eheim Classic 2213 would be too much for my new
>aquarium?
>
>The 2 foot tank I have will hold approx 65L of water (approx 17 gallons). I
>was considering the eheim Classic 2213 or the Eheim Professional 2222
>canister filter.
>
>I already have had a retailer tell me they will not sell me a Professional
>as it would be too much flow for the tank.
>
>At the moment I have a 30L (approx 8 gallon) tank with two filters running,
>one is 380L/H and the other is 400L/H turnover.
>
>Could I ask for some expert advice? I have been told to stay away from the
>Eheim ECCO, the gears in them seem to wear out quite quickly I have been
>told by several retailers, hence why they are hard to find for me.
>
>Regards,
>Des.
>

[Scott Rogahn]

I have a 2215 (one step bigger than yours) on a 20 gal heavily planted
tank. I have the spray bar pointed straight down on the back glass. I have
no problems with excess current. I would thing the 2213 would be fine.

Scott


"Desmond Wong" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if the Eheim Classic 2213 would be too much for my new
> aquarium?
>
> The 2 foot tank I have will hold approx 65L of water (approx 17 gallons).
I
> was considering the eheim Classic 2213 or the Eheim Professional 2222
> canister filter.
>
> I already have had a retailer tell me they will not sell me a Professional
> as it would be too much flow for the tank.
>
> At the moment I have a 30L (approx 8 gallon) tank with two filters
running,
> one is 380L/H and the other is 400L/H turnover.
>
> Could I ask for some expert advice? I have been told to stay away from the
> Eheim ECCO, the gears in them seem to wear out quite quickly I have been
> told by several retailers, hence why they are hard to find for me.
>
> Regards,
> Des.
>
>

[NetMax]

"Desmond Wong" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if the Eheim Classic 2213 would be too much for my new
> aquarium?
>
> The 2 foot tank I have will hold approx 65L of water (approx 17
gallons). I
> was considering the eheim Classic 2213 or the Eheim Professional 2222
> canister filter.
>
> I already have had a retailer tell me they will not sell me a
Professional
> as it would be too much flow for the tank.
>
> At the moment I have a 30L (approx 8 gallon) tank with two filters
running,
> one is 380L/H and the other is 400L/H turnover.
>
> Could I ask for some expert advice? I have been told to stay away from
the
> Eheim ECCO, the gears in them seem to wear out quite quickly I have
been
> told by several retailers, hence why they are hard to find for me.
>
> Regards,
> Des.

The answer to so many aquaria questions seems to be 'it depends'. On
this page http://www.2cah.com/netmax/basics/filters/filters.shtml#cani
there are tables comparing flow rates between models & manufacturers.
The 2213 is rated for a 66g tank and would give you a flow rate of x6
tank volumes per hour. If your tank was significantly full of stones,
then this flow rate could be acceptably dissipated. At the other extreme,
if your tank was relatively empty, you could have a whirlpool. Somewhere
in between, it could be made workable, but tall flat fish (Angelfish,
Discus etc) would not be appreciative. There aren't too many fish which
would do well in the first case (with so much rockwork, but in a 17g
tank), but they do exist. If your tank was oddly shaped (tall hex) then
some extra turbulence can be desirable. Canisters are typically run at
x2 to x4 tank volume, and powerfilters much faster, at x4 to x5. There
is an Eheim 2211 which does 63gph and is rated for a 40g. I think that
would be much more manageable for you.

There is also the Fluval 104 (25g) and the 204 (up to a 40g). These also
have flow restrictors. Sometimes at work, I put a 304 motor on a 404
filter, so I have a longer servicing interval with no increase in flow.
This should also work with a 104 motor on a 204 filter. However, since
you probably didn't come here for silly suggestions ;~), perhaps you
could explain your objectives to us.
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Desmond Wong]

You are correct when you say "it depends". I have had a lot of people say
Yes, No, Maybe and Deifinitely Not, all about the same thing.

Currently I have two Ottocinclus, 1 SAE, 11 Neon Tetras, and am finding that
there is a lot of waste product floating around the tank. I am also finding
that nitate levels are shooting up quite quickly, and water changes twice a
week regulate that to around 40ppm.

I should make note that this is a 30L tank that they are in, I am planning
to move them to a two foot tank in a few months (see previous post on
cleaning a tank)
and am also planning the size of the filter.

I was advised that it would be better to get an external filter, as it would
require less maintenance overall. The current tank setup looks kind of like
this :

-----------------top of tank -------------------
| [ ] |
| | Filter 1 - 380L/H |
| | <-- [ ] |
| | Filter 2 - 400L/H |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| <> |
| |
-----------------bottom of tank----------------

Filter 1 is the internal filter that came with the small tank, it pumps
380L/H and the suction part is approximately shown in the diagram above.
This runs through fine sponge, then Ceramic noodles and then carbon then
back to the tank.
Filter 2 is another filter with a venturi(?) to filter and circulate water
and introduce air to the tank (I was told this is the best way to add air to
the tank).
This filter is just a sponge. I was advised by the pet store that this would
help reduce the amount of water changes and add circulation.

This is why I decided to take on a friend's empty tank, clean it and set up
for use to move all of the fish to, and then hopefully get a few more!

I would envisage that this hobby will push over the next few years to a
maybe three or four foot tank, and so I am looking for a filter, probably
canister so
that I can just sell the tank, and not sell the filters, etc with it (as I
won't get much for them...)

The Ottos seem to leave the most waste, and it is quite visable, floating
around and around if you look at the tank for a few seconds. Plants are
quite happy and growing quite well (in tank and also outdoor plants from the
water changes). I have learnt from a past experience that Ottos don't like
50ppm+ in
nitrates, they really don't.

Nitrite and Ammonia levels are at 0, so that is all good. I don't know what
fish I will get when I move up tanks, I would like to have a "decent" size
colony of
Neons, maybe 24 neons, as well as maybe some other fish that haven't been
researched into yet which would be suited to all species in the tank
currently.

I was considering also a Fluval, and Eheim Ecco, many retailers have
mentioned them but then I have other retailers who say that the Fluvals have
lots of "leakage" problems,
and the Ecco was a good idea, but the gears get stuck quite easily on them
and are not a good unit on value for money.

This is why I was looking at the 2213, as it is still quite slow, and using
a spray bar at the top of the new tank, as well as the height climb/drop of
the filter (approx 1.2M from the top of the tank to where the filter will
sit) should also slow down the flow, is that correct? I tried this using a
bucket and a 500L/H power head, and found that there was only a small
trickle at that 1.2M height...

I hope that description gives you some idea of where I am heading and
hopefully I can get some good comments on what I should be doing to give
these fish the best that I can give them!

Des.



"NetMax" > wrote in message
. ..
> The answer to so many aquaria questions seems to be 'it depends'. On
> this page http://www.2cah.com/netmax/basics/filters/filters.shtml#cani
> there are tables comparing flow rates between models & manufacturers.
> The 2213 is rated for a 66g tank and would give you a flow rate of x6
> tank volumes per hour. If your tank was significantly full of stones,
> then this flow rate could be acceptably dissipated. At the other extreme,
> if your tank was relatively empty, you could have a whirlpool. Somewhere
> in between, it could be made workable, but tall flat fish (Angelfish,
> Discus etc) would not be appreciative. There aren't too many fish which
> would do well in the first case (with so much rockwork, but in a 17g
> tank), but they do exist. If your tank was oddly shaped (tall hex) then
> some extra turbulence can be desirable. Canisters are typically run at
> x2 to x4 tank volume, and powerfilters much faster, at x4 to x5. There
> is an Eheim 2211 which does 63gph and is rated for a 40g. I think that
> would be much more manageable for you.
>
> There is also the Fluval 104 (25g) and the 204 (up to a 40g). These also
> have flow restrictors. Sometimes at work, I put a 304 motor on a 404
> filter, so I have a longer servicing interval with no increase in flow.
> This should also work with a 104 motor on a 204 filter. However, since
> you probably didn't come here for silly suggestions ;~), perhaps you
> could explain your objectives to us.
> --
> www.NetMax.tk
>
>

[NetMax]

"Desmond Wong" > wrote in message
...
> You are correct when you say "it depends". I have had a lot of people
say
> Yes, No, Maybe and Deifinitely Not, all about the same thing.
>
> Currently I have two Ottocinclus, 1 SAE, 11 Neon Tetras, and am finding
that
> there is a lot of waste product floating around the tank. I am also
finding
> that nitate levels are shooting up quite quickly, and water changes
twice a
> week regulate that to around 40ppm.
>
> I should make note that this is a 30L tank that they are in, I am
planning
> to move them to a two foot tank in a few months (see previous post on
> cleaning a tank)
> and am also planning the size of the filter.

Ordinarily, your fish population would not be capable of such a high
sustained amount of nitrates (NO3) based only on what they are being fed,
so I think that you have several contributing factors. The small tank
size (8 US gallons) is at it's limit with your fish load, so this is a
contributor (exasperates any smaller problems). You probably have an
excess of mulm which has built up in the gravel. This breaks down
releasing ammonia and adding to the total bio-load, so effectively your
biological filter is doing double duty. In a small tank, when at the
maximums for bio-load (check) and with heavy detritus in the gravel
(check?), the mechanical filtration can get very poor, leaving a lot of
particulates in the water which seem to never settle down anywhere. All
these symptoms are signs of under filtration. Adding more internal
filters would eventually fix it, but imo, very poorly as all that
turbulence would stress the fish and cause much detritus to take to the
water column.

High NO3 in your tank setup might suggest OTS (old tank syndrome) in hard
water. It would be interesting to know your water parameters. I'd guess
your tap gH & kH to be normal to high, and your tank kH much lower,
possibly also dropping your pH. Just my usual technical curiousity at
work :o)

> I was advised that it would be better to get an external filter, as it
would
> require less maintenance overall. The current tank setup looks kind of
like
> this :

True, but a properly sized powerfilter, more tank maintenence (if this is
a factor) and maybe less fish would also achieve the same thing.

> -----------------top of tank -------------------
> | [ ]
|
> | | Filter 1 - 380L/H |
> | | <-- [ ] |
> | | Filter 2 - 400L/H |
> | |
|
> | |
|
> | |
|
> | |
|
> | <> |
> |
|
> -----------------bottom of tank----------------
>
> Filter 1 is the internal filter that came with the small tank, it pumps
> 380L/H and the suction part is approximately shown in the diagram
above.
> This runs through fine sponge, then Ceramic noodles and then carbon
then
> back to the tank.
> Filter 2 is another filter with a venturi(?) to filter and circulate
water
> and introduce air to the tank (I was told this is the best way to add
air to
> the tank).
> This filter is just a sponge. I was advised by the pet store that this
would
> help reduce the amount of water changes and add circulation.

From the description, your surface area for biological filtration is
probably just barely sufficient, and your mechanical filtration is
insufficient. You will be very pleased with the performance of a proper
canister filter.

> This is why I decided to take on a friend's empty tank, clean it and
set up
> for use to move all of the fish to, and then hopefully get a few more!
>
> I would envisage that this hobby will push over the next few years to a
> maybe three or four foot tank, and so I am looking for a filter,
probably
> canister so
> that I can just sell the tank, and not sell the filters, etc with it
(as I
> won't get much for them...)

Sounds completely reasonable, but later this hobby has a way of
introducing logical reasons to not sell bit & pieces. Small tanks make
handy quarantine, isolation, hospital and fry tanks. With larger tanks,
it's not unusual to have multiple filters. Most of my filters are rated
for the 50-100g range, and I have tanks from 40 to 112g. In the smaller
tanks, I use 1 filter, and in the larger tanks I use 2 (or 3). This
gives me much more flexibility than having a range of filters from very
small to very large. You are right about not getting your money back
from selling a filter, but they are an excellent investment if you keep
them. The glass box (if small) is also not worth much.

> The Ottos seem to leave the most waste, and it is quite visable,
floating
> around and around if you look at the tank for a few seconds. Plants are
> quite happy and growing quite well (in tank and also outdoor plants
from the
> water changes). I have learnt from a past experience that Ottos don't
like
> 50ppm+ in
> nitrates, they really don't.

As the Otos are algae eaters, you probably have a good crop going.
Adding more plants might help in the long term, but gravel vacuuming will
I think have the most immediate effects (assuming the detritus is
accessible).

> Nitrite and Ammonia levels are at 0, so that is all good. I don't know
what
> fish I will get when I move up tanks, I would like to have a "decent"
size
> colony of
> Neons, maybe 24 neons, as well as maybe some other fish that haven't
been
> researched into yet which would be suited to all species in the tank
> currently.
>
> I was considering also a Fluval, and Eheim Ecco, many retailers have
> mentioned them but then I have other retailers who say that the Fluvals
have
> lots of "leakage" problems,
> and the Ecco was a good idea, but the gears get stuck quite easily on
them
> and are not a good unit on value for money.

Fluval used to have serious leakage problems and Honda Civics used to
fall apart. You should make your purchases according to what a product
brings to the table now, rather than historical records. At work I have
many Fluvals running (at least a dozen) and in 1-1/2 years, no leaks.
These filters are not babied and get more moves and abuse than a home
setup. Fluvals are one of the filters I sell and I'd be aware if a
customer returned one which leaked. Of course, I can only speak
according to my own experiences and observations, so on most products,
opinions will always vary.

Operating in my livingroom I have a Fluval 201, a 304 and an Eheim 2213.
The 201 is an antique and falls in the leaker class, and I try not to
service it too often, however the fact that it's still in operation says
something (that I'm cheap ;~). Both the 2213 and the 304 are competant
reliable filters. It'is not fair to compare one to another though. The
2213 Classic is technologically several years old, so the more modern 304
is technically far superior with more media handling capacity and
features. When I bought the 2213, it was better (imo) than the 303 which
was available then. When I bought the 304, it represented the best
value. The latest filter I bought was an Emporor 400 (still in the box
waiting for an application :o). When I need to buy another filter, I'll
re-assess what the market offers and let value guide me.

My 2213 has not been completely problem-free, but in any manufacturer's
production line, defects get past inspections. Single bad experiences
should not guide purchases as much as design weaknesses, though I'm not
aware of any which currently exist with the canister filters on the
market that I'm familiar with. Look at features, purchase costs and the
expense of filter media (initial and replacement).

> This is why I was looking at the 2213, as it is still quite slow, and
using
> a spray bar at the top of the new tank, as well as the height
climb/drop of
> the filter (approx 1.2M from the top of the tank to where the filter
will
> sit) should also slow down the flow, is that correct? I tried this
using a
> bucket and a 500L/H power head, and found that there was only a small
> trickle at that 1.2M height...

Based on tank volume exchange rate vs. rated tank capability, the 2213
has a very high efficiency, but the lower flow does cause it's mechancal
pickup power to suffer a bit, so keep your intake low, and provide a
clear natural path for the returns to reach the intake. Low flow rates
are especially good for fish which do not like turbulence, though most
filters can either be turned down, or have the flow dissipated by using
rocks plants wood etc. Your Otos and SAE have no special flow
requirements. I try to keep Neons from being buffeted in currents.
While they are not unduly affected (small cross-section), I find they
behave more relaxed in lower flow rates, or very dissipated flow (jmo).

Canister filters work in a closed loop. The ends of the intake must be
underwater (obviously ;~), and at any depth, the head pressure will
correspond to the surface height. The return pipe is either underwater,
or only an inch or two above the water. It's head pressure will closely
correspond to the intake's. Because the 'weight' of the water in the
intake hose is the same as the 'weight' in the return hose, the pump
operates at a near zero head pressure (closed loop). This allows a
canister pump to be relatively small, only having to deal with the hose
resistance to achieve the desired flow rate. They are not designed to
operate with any significant head pressure, such as raising the return
hose significantly above the tank.

At the risk of becoming too complicated, the flow rate graph of a water
pump will show a decrease in flow as a function of an increase in head
pressure (as you raise the return pipe). For low flow high torque pumps,
this decrease happens gradually, (ie: almost linearly losing 10gph per
inch). For high flow low torque pumps (canister filter pumps and most
magnetically coupled impeller pumps, including your powerhead), this
decrease happens very quickly. You might lose 10gph in an inch, 30 in
the next inch, 50 in the next etc, so in a short span, you go from 100%
efficient to a dead stop. How this factors in, is that the accumulation
of detritus in the filter media increases the flow resistance, and since
your flow rate is already in a rapidly changing part of the pump's flow
graph, a few weeks of operation can result in your canister filter's
output slowing to a trickle, effectively negating its filtering
capability, causing your nitrifying bacteria to die off and turning the
contents of the filter into a toxic anaerobic soup (all highly
undesirable).

To make a long story short (not my fortee ;~), it is not recommended to
operate any canister filter, with any significant amount of head pressure
as you are suggesting. You can do this with a powerhead (for moving
water between levels) but not when filtration media is involved.

> I hope that description gives you some idea of where I am heading and
> hopefully I can get some good comments on what I should be doing to
give
> these fish the best that I can give them!

I don't think that you have any esoteric requirements. It's the state of
your current tank that is influencing you to over-filter. Specifically,
for the type of fish you are interested in (small), I tend to go lower on
the filtration power scale, higher on the natural plants (lots of ground
cover), feed sparingly and keep a clear area at the front of the tank at
a lower grade for regular gravel vacuuming. I also put some effort into
making sure no fish food hits the bottom. I think that will have more
influence on your tank's health than over-filtering, so go with any
external filter you think which provides the best value for your setup,
staying with ratings 150-160% of the tank's volume. For a 17g tank, a
rating of around 30g should be more than adequate, and for flow rates, 2x
to 4x or prepare to dissipate if going up to 6x.

hth :o)
*sorry for my lack of brevity, it's a trademark ;~)*
--
www.NetMax.tk

> Des.
>
>
>
> "NetMax" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > The answer to so many aquaria questions seems to be 'it depends'. On
> > this page
http://www.2cah.com/netmax/basics/filters/filters.shtml#cani
> > there are tables comparing flow rates between models & manufacturers.
> > The 2213 is rated for a 66g tank and would give you a flow rate of x6
> > tank volumes per hour. If your tank was significantly full of
stones,
> > then this flow rate could be acceptably dissipated. At the other
extreme,
> > if your tank was relatively empty, you could have a whirlpool.
Somewhere
> > in between, it could be made workable, but tall flat fish (Angelfish,
> > Discus etc) would not be appreciative. There aren't too many fish
which
> > would do well in the first case (with so much rockwork, but in a 17g
> > tank), but they do exist. If your tank was oddly shaped (tall hex)
then
> > some extra turbulence can be desirable. Canisters are typically run
at
> > x2 to x4 tank volume, and powerfilters much faster, at x4 to x5.
There
> > is an Eheim 2211 which does 63gph and is rated for a 40g. I think
that
> > would be much more manageable for you.
> >
> > There is also the Fluval 104 (25g) and the 204 (up to a 40g). These
also
> > have flow restrictors. Sometimes at work, I put a 304 motor on a 404
> > filter, so I have a longer servicing interval with no increase in
flow.
> > This should also work with a 104 motor on a 204 filter. However,
since
> > you probably didn't come here for silly suggestions ;~), perhaps you
> > could explain your objectives to us.
> > --
> > www.NetMax.tk
> >
> >
>
>

[The Outcaste]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 20:48:12 +1000, "Desmond Wong"
> bubbled forth the following:
(Mid-posted)
>I would envisage that this hobby will push over the next few years to a
>maybe three or four foot tank, and so I am looking for a filter, probably
>canister so
>that I can just sell the tank, and not sell the filters, etc with it (as I
>won't get much for them...)

Personally, I would think it easier to sell a complete setup, tank,
hood, and filter, rather than just tank and hood. Also, in a few years
you may find yourself *adding* the larger tank, rather than upgrading,
so you may want to get a smaller filter for now. Plus, in a few years,
there may be even better filters on the market
>
>I was considering also a Fluval, and Eheim Ecco, many retailers have
>mentioned them but then I have other retailers who say that the Fluvals have
>lots of "leakage" problems,
>and the Ecco was a good idea, but the gears get stuck quite easily on them
>and are not a good unit on value for money.
>
I purchased a Fluval 304 and 404 from Big Al's online in January, they
have been running without a hitch. I'll eventually be using these on a
45 gal and a 70 gal. They are currently both in my 30 gal with the
outputs feeding an RUGF.

I ran the 304 in my 10 gal (38 liters) for a while with the valve set
at 1/2 (max restriction recommended by Fluval) and it caused about the
same flow as my AC200 in feeding mode, which is supposed to be about
66-70 gal/hour. The 2213 with a spray bar should be OK, especially if
you can restrict the flow slightly.

>This is why I was looking at the 2213, as it is still quite slow, and using
>a spray bar at the top of the new tank, as well as the height climb/drop of
>the filter (approx 1.2M from the top of the tank to where the filter will
>sit) should also slow down the flow, is that correct? I tried this using a
>bucket and a 500L/H power head, and found that there was only a small
>trickle at that 1.2M height...

Canisters are a closed system, it makes almost no difference if the
canister is next to the tank, or below the tank as long as some part
of the output is below the water level. That's the reason for the J
shape of the fluval outflow nozzle (I don't know if the Eheim has a
similar design). Under normal use, the pump merely circulates water.
The only "head" the pump has to overcome is the restriction of the
output hose.

Even during water changes, or when the output is completely above the
water surface, the maximum head will be from the water level in the
tank up and over the rim, not from the level of the filter.
>
>I hope that description gives you some idea of where I am heading and
>hopefully I can get some good comments on what I should be doing to give
>these fish the best that I can give them!
>
>Des.

HTH

Jerry

[Velvet]

NetMax wrote:

> "Desmond Wong" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I was wondering if the Eheim Classic 2213 would be too much for my new
>>aquarium?
>>
>>The 2 foot tank I have will hold approx 65L of water (approx 17
>
> gallons). I
>
>>was considering the eheim Classic 2213 or the Eheim Professional 2222
>>canister filter.
>>
>>I already have had a retailer tell me they will not sell me a
>
> Professional
>
>>as it would be too much flow for the tank.
>>
>>At the moment I have a 30L (approx 8 gallon) tank with two filters
>
> running,
>
>>one is 380L/H and the other is 400L/H turnover.
>>
>>Could I ask for some expert advice? I have been told to stay away from
>
> the
>
>>Eheim ECCO, the gears in them seem to wear out quite quickly I have
>
> been
>
>>told by several retailers, hence why they are hard to find for me.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Des.
>
>
> The answer to so many aquaria questions seems to be 'it depends'. On
> this page http://www.2cah.com/netmax/basics/filters/filters.shtml#cani
> there are tables comparing flow rates between models & manufacturers.
> The 2213 is rated for a 66g tank and would give you a flow rate of x6
> tank volumes per hour. If your tank was significantly full of stones,
> then this flow rate could be acceptably dissipated. At the other extreme,
> if your tank was relatively empty, you could have a whirlpool. Somewhere
> in between, it could be made workable, but tall flat fish (Angelfish,
> Discus etc) would not be appreciative. There aren't too many fish which
> would do well in the first case (with so much rockwork, but in a 17g
> tank), but they do exist. If your tank was oddly shaped (tall hex) then
> some extra turbulence can be desirable. Canisters are typically run at
> x2 to x4 tank volume, and powerfilters much faster, at x4 to x5. There
> is an Eheim 2211 which does 63gph and is rated for a 40g. I think that
> would be much more manageable for you.
>
> There is also the Fluval 104 (25g) and the 204 (up to a 40g). These also
> have flow restrictors. Sometimes at work, I put a 304 motor on a 404
> filter, so I have a longer servicing interval with no increase in flow.
> This should also work with a 104 motor on a 204 filter. However, since
> you probably didn't come here for silly suggestions ;~), perhaps you
> could explain your objectives to us.

Have a feeling mine's the 2213, and it's on a 23 gallon (uk?) tank.
36"x12"x15".

Flow rate is just right, nothing too ott, but then mine does spend a
fair amount of time with plants and snails doing their best to clog the
pre-filter. Even when freshly overhauled though, nothing like a
whirlpool going on.

If I did it again, I might consider the next size up, or a similar in
the PRO series. I like more rather than less filtration.

--


Velvet

[NetMax]

"Velvet" > wrote in message
...
> NetMax wrote:
>
> > "Desmond Wong" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I was wondering if the Eheim Classic 2213 would be too much for my
new
> >>aquarium?
> >>
> >>The 2 foot tank I have will hold approx 65L of water (approx 17
> >
> > gallons).
<snip>>

> Have a feeling mine's the 2213, and it's on a 23 gallon (uk?) tank.
> 36"x12"x15".


Ah the wonders of conversions :~|
Your tank is 28us gallons or 127 litres.
The OP is 17us gallons or 65 litres.
hth
--
www.NetMax.tk


> Flow rate is just right, nothing too ott, but then mine does spend a
> fair amount of time with plants and snails doing their best to clog the
> pre-filter. Even when freshly overhauled though, nothing like a
> whirlpool going on.
>
> If I did it again, I might consider the next size up, or a similar in
> the PRO series. I like more rather than less filtration.
>
> --
>
>
> Velvet