FishProfiles.com Message Forums

It's deciding time for my new tank. Obviously I'd like to get the larger but it's a matter of convincing my spouse why, other than 'bigger is better'

We have the space for either and the stock list I came up with would work in the smaller tank. After visiting and calling many lfs the price difference between the two is ~$138.00

Is it worth paying the extra money for the larger tank, and why? I need some good reasons please

~~~~~~
[/font]

~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is water at the bottom of the ocean

VOTED FOR 125g
I believe it is worth it because a larger tank is more biologically stable. The fish will have a more solid environment in the larger tank. They will not be as vulnerable to ammonia spikes, etc. Ask him if he would like to lose $135 in fish that have to be replaced due to death from a less stable environment... We all know that a 90 gal is VERY stable, but he doesn't know that... You could also go into the dimensions and depth perception if you plan on it being a show tank...

in my opinion - and this is just my preference - if you're going to go with a 90, you might as well save some money and go with a 75. they have the same footprint 48X18, it's just that the 90 is a few inches taller, and taller tanks seem like a waste of space. even with angels, 20 inches tall would be plenty.

that being said, the 125 would be great it's longer, just as wide, and doesnt waste a lot of size on height. it allows you a lot more options and will allow you to go with larger "cooler" fish later on if you want. of course, something like a 180 would be ideal in my book...

once again, this is just my opinion. dont know if any of that will convince your hubby. good luck!

---

Back in the saddle!

Go with the one with the biggest footprint....I agree with what nowherman6 said about 75's. So I'd go either 75 or 120...in which case that's easy 120 it is.

Bigger is better....isn't that what guys always believe ....dont forget to compute cost of stand filters heaters ect into the equation .

^_^
Current [link=Contest Rules]http://www.fishprofiles.com/files/forums/Aquascaping/44382.html?200412022138" style="COLOR: #EB4288[/link][/font]

The price quotes I received were tank, stand, hood and light(s). Since this tank won't be planted I can use basic (inexpensive) lighting. So luckily as far as equipment additional costs would be for filters and heaters.


~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is water at the bottom of the ocean

the only drawback of getting the 125 over the 90 (or 75) would be the added expense of lighting fixtures if you wanted to make it a planted tank. and since you're not doing that, then it seems like an obvious choice to me

---

Back in the saddle!

Voted for 125

Hey @that price differenc why not!

okay so maybe I changed my vote.....125 has more surface area .


^_^
Current [link=Contest Rules]http://www.fishprofiles.com/files/forums/Aquascaping/44382.html?200412022138" style="COLOR: #EB4288[/link][/font]

125.

As said before, more surface area for gas exchange and more biologically stable. Plus it's 6 feet long

6 feet long huh?

You could keep a Babelfish in that without it stunting !!!




*stocks Theresas tank with a vey large school of small barbs*


^_^
Current [link=Contest Rules]http://www.fishprofiles.com/files/forums/Aquascaping/44382.html?200412022138" style="COLOR: #EB4288[/link][/font]

absolutely the 125. if the difference in price is only $138 then no doubt the 125 is a much better value. you'll have 2 extra feet of length which your cichlids will really appreciate. not to mention you would be able to add a little more to your stocklist.

6' tanks are great I have 2 of em.