which tank?

[regina13]

Would you rather have a 60x16x16 or 48x18x18 and why?

I like both but need help. I am not shure on fish at the moment, so I can not tell you anything there.
Could one hold more fish?
What are the pros and cons of a short tank?
It might go reef, but I am not shure. If you have more questions just ask.

 

[vincent6396]

Really depends on what you like and keep. For the 4 ft tank, the lighting system might be cheaper vs the 5ft if you gonna do a reef setup. Do a research on the lighting and whole setup before you purcase the tank, but if money isn't a problem, the more water volume the better.

 

[regina13]

They have the same water volume.

 

[sula]

I have 4 feet worth of lighting on a 5 foot tank - 2X 175 MH and 2X 110 VHO.
For my purposes, this is plenty and I do not mind the corners having slightly less coverage - in fact, it is not visible to "my" eyes at all, but when I have a coral I want to put in less light, the corners is where I look.
As said above, it depends upon what you want to keep, I geared my tank toward LPS so was hoping for areas of less intense light for some of those corals.
For me, I wanted the 5 foot length as it gave more swimming room, because I really wanted a tang

 

[bbb]

My tank is 60"L x 18"D x 16"T. I wish it was a couple of inches taller but it's not that big of a deal. The biggest problem with the height is that some of the rock is close enough to the surface that it's hard to place corals on parts of it. The five foot length is pretty nice though. It's not as common as a four or six foot tank and gives you a little more room for fish that like swim a lot. The eighteen inches of depth is really nice and offers plenty of room for aquascaping but I don't know if two inches would make that big of a difference or not. If I had to chose between the two tanks you posted I would go for the 5 footer because I like that extra foot of length but either one would make a nice tank.

 

[invertcrazy]

I like the 5' better -extra 12" you can put more corals or more swimming room for fish-- the extra 2" on top of the 4' tank, your not gonna put anything up to the surface anyway so i would rather have the extra foot wide. just my .02
oh by the way what does that elephant tang eat fish food or peanuts

 

[110innc]

Originally Posted by InvertCrazy
http:///forum/post/2699210
I like the 5' better -extra 12" you can put more corals or more swimming room for fish-- the extra 2" on top of the 4' tank, your not gonna put anything up to the surface anyway so i would rather have the extra foot wide. just my .02
oh by the way what does that elephant tang eat fish food or peanuts

ditto

 

[gohabsgo]

i recently bought a 77 gal bowfront 48 inch, and i have dificulty reaching the bottom of the tank because it is tall i always hurt my arm!!( i'm 5and 7" girl) If i could go back i would buy a 5 foot tank a litle lower.

 

[aquaknight]

The 5-footer as well. 12" of length for 2" of depth.
Any particular reason it's down to only these two tanks? Are they custom? A standard 90gal (48x18x24) you could find cheaper then either? (pending the tanks aren't like being given to you) and I'd prefer it over the 5' tank.

 

[regina13]

The tank will be custom, I just don't know anout the dimensions. I like both of the ones I listed. I do not want a tall tank. They look nice but are not for me.
I want to stay under 70 gallons at the moment so these dimensions seemed to work out best.

 

[mr_x]

get the 48" tank. cheaper to light, and deeper front to back. if it's custom...make the tank even deeper from front to back. i promise you'll be happy you did. ask anyone that's been to my house...i have a 30" deep front t back tank and everyone thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread(i think i should have ordered a 36" deep!)

 

[jerryatrick]

Originally Posted by Mr_X
http:///forum/post/2701594
get the 48" tank. cheaper to light, and deeper front to back. if it's custom...make the tank even deeper from front to back. i promise you'll be happy you did. ask anyone that's been to my house...i have a 30" deep front t back tank and everyone thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread(i think i should have ordered a 36" deep!)

 

[stanlalee]

you are only losing 2" of height and 2" of depth to get a full foot of length. seems like a no brainer to get the 60" aquarium. pro's are the 60" aquarium has more usable space for the fish to swim in, less light demanding (pretty insignificant, again were are talking 2"). I cant think of any pro's to the 48" tank because the 2" front to back and vertically is almost insignificant. its a more common footprint if that matters to you. less expensive to light unless your using MH in which case you are most likely going to use two regardless of of which size you use (the extra foot coverage is as easy as raising the lights a few inches which the 2" shorter tank allows you to do without sacraficing penetration requirements).

 

[mr_x]

so, then is a 5' , 16" wide tank ok for tangs? not in my opinion. the extra foot is not going to allow you any fish you can't have in the 4' tank.

 

[stanlalee]

Originally Posted by Mr_X
http:///forum/post/2702501
so, then is a 5' , 16" wide tank ok for tangs? not in my opinion. the extra foot is not going to allow you any fish you can't have in the 4' tank.

who said anything about tangs

more usable swimming space is more usable swimming space. more is better for swimming and reduced territorial competitiveness (read aggressiveness due to confinement). its a pro of 4ft vs 5ft not a debate of what can be kept