# Fluval 3.0



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

Tons of people who actually have this model are about to opine but I have 4 tanks on 2.0'a and can give you my 2 cents. As far as I understand, and I may be corrected, the 3.0 is more timed and computerized than it is more lumens output. So having tinkered with the 2.0 lights for a several years now, they grow plants. They are pretty darn great.


----------



## Quint (Mar 24, 2019)

Not the same size situation but I have a 40B with the 36" on it. I ended up physically raising the light up about 1.5-2" do to the width of the 40B. This allows all 4 corners to get good light. In my case it is still plenty of light at less then 75% which is the highest I will go due to low tech. I am still playing with that part of it. 

My plants grow but so does the algae. 

The programming available now is pretty awesome as far as timing/intensity, not a huge fan of the app interface but it works.


----------



## Jordantanked12 (Sep 6, 2019)

@Quint Are u heavily planted ? And what’s substrate if u don’t mind me asking. Just curious so I can make moves to try to get the least algae I can.


----------



## Quint (Mar 24, 2019)

I have sakrete commercial medium sand (basically PFS), I would say medium planted maybe a little more. 

Had been doing really good with algae then summer time hit and I was gone for week or two at a time. There is one glass door that let in a bunch of light and turned the tank into a green soup cage. Took a week or so to get that under control and back to crystal clear water again however during that period the plants suffered and the other algaes dug in. Currently battling them now. Making progress but its slow. 

Take care of algae early, the first sign of it try to get on top of it. Makes things easier. Or do CO2, I just dont want to go down that route right now.


----------



## Econde (Oct 13, 2015)

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> Tons of people who actually have this model are about to opine but I have 4 tanks on 2.0'a and can give you my 2 cents. As far as I understand, and I may be corrected, the 3.0 is more timed and computerized than it is more lumens output. So having tinkered with the 2.0 lights for a several years now, they grow plants. They are pretty darn great.


Definitely more customization. In terms of light output, I've been reading that the 2.0 has more power. Please feel free to correct me on this. 

I have the 3.0 on a 36 x 12 x 12 raised 6 inches over on 65% output. Medium planted tank and had a slight bout with hair algae, but I spot treated with Excel. Now week 6 it's been relatively algae free. Feel free to have a look in my signature, there are pictures of how my light is mounted over my tank.


----------



## straha20 (Sep 1, 2016)

Econde said:


> Definitely more customization. In terms of light output, I've been reading that the 2.0 has more power. Please feel free to correct me on this.
> 
> I have the 3.0 on a 36 x 12 x 12 raised 6 inches over on 65% output. Medium planted tank and had a slight bout with hair algae, but I spot treated with Excel. Now week 6 it's been relatively algae free. Feel free to have a look in my signature, there are pictures of how my light is mounted over my tank.


I've got a 3.0 on my home built 36x12x12 river tank sitting on the rim at 100% power. Man, that thing is bright! Wanting to get the algae growing for my hillstream loaches.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Econde said:


> I've been reading that the 2.0 has more power. Please feel free to correct me on this.


OK.. 3 measurements..




> If you go to planted tank forum, it’s actually very close. It has a better spectrum while having a nearly identical par.





> Aquarium co op did say it was lower, he got a 27 from the 3.0 and a 32 from the 2.0. Both would put you in the same light range of low/medium.






> -You mean Aquarium Coop? That’s a really poor sensor he’s using.
> I’ve tested it with a Licor and the output is the same as a 3.0. Which correlates nicely with what the guy using the Seneye got as well.



Pick one.. 

http://guppy-fish.com/reviews-fluval-3-0-led/


----------



## Econde (Oct 13, 2015)

@jeffkrol Nice, thank you for the clarification!


----------



## Kayak83 (Apr 18, 2017)

Returned my 3.0 for my 29g because it left dark spots on the *top * left/right. 24" is too short for a 29g which is 30"L, IMO. At substrate level it was fine. I have the latest Finnex now and am plenty happy with it.


----------



## Jordantanked12 (Sep 6, 2019)

Kayak83 said:


> Returned my 3.0 for my 29g because it left dark spots on the *top * left/right. 24" is too short for a 29g which is 30"L, IMO. At substrate level it was fine. I have the latest Finnex now and am plenty happy with it.


Thanks for the feedback on that. Which finnex did u buy?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

ThomasJ22 said:


> Thanks for the feedback on that. Which finnex did u buy?



Sorry not them but the good thing is Finnex makes 30" lights..


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KPP8VJ6/ref=twister_B07KYH9JCM?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1


Somewhere I read "PAR" of these is about 20-30% less than the Fluval BUT don't quote me.
some state differently..
doesn't matter to much if you use a 24" light vs a true 30" light.. it generally will equal out w/ similar types (i.e diode type)


> The Finnex Planted Plus 24/7 CC light sits about 16.5 inches from the substrate and it gave me a reading of 40 PAR at the substrate.
> 
> The Fluval 3.0 sits about 14.5 inches from the substrate and it gave me a reading of 114 PAR! Nearly three times what the Finnex is capable of.


https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/10-lighting/1290451-fluval-3-0-vs-finnex-pp-24-7-cc-seneye.html


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> OK.. 3 measurements..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am still at somewhat of a loss on Cory's test with the 3.0 because my Seneye has it SIGNIFICANTLY higher insofar as PAR output. Even accounting for his deeper tank, I feel like it should be much higher than an output of 27 μmol.


----------



## Jordantanked12 (Sep 6, 2019)

@jeffkrol How does that finnex do with illuminating whole tank and growing plants ?


----------



## YTP (Aug 26, 2019)

I also would like to go with a Fluval 3.0 on a 29g and am trying to figure out the sizing without having to deal with dark spots. I would likely be raising the light about 3" above the top of the tank, and I'm hoping the extra height would help improve coverage of the corners without reducing PAR too much as I would also be using a glass lid. 

I can't decide if I would rather just go with the 24" version and hope the coverage is good enough when raised, or just go with the 36" version and put some electrical tape over the extra LEDs that hang over the edge of the tank. The 24" would certainly look better without the tacky overhang but I'm concerned with coverage even if it is raised.


----------



## Streetwise (May 24, 2019)

If it is a rimless tank, you could run multiple Fluval Nano lights.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

YTP said:


> I also would like to go with a Fluval 3.0 on a 29g and am trying to figure out the sizing without having to deal with dark spots. I would likely be raising the light about 3" above the top of the tank, and I'm hoping the extra height would help improve coverage of the corners without reducing PAR too much as I would also be using a glass lid.
> 
> I can't decide if I would rather just go with the 24" version and hope the coverage is good enough when raised, or just go with the 36" version and put some electrical tape over the extra LEDs that hang over the edge of the tank. The 24" would certainly look better without the tacky overhang but I'm concerned with coverage even if it is raised.




I think this is one of the weak points of the 3.0, is the sizing. And, at least with the 36” version, the light bar itself is even shorter than the total width. I think the 36” version is closer to 33 3/8”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## YTP (Aug 26, 2019)

varanidguy said:


> I think this is one of the weak points of the 3.0, is the sizing. And, at least with the 36” version, the light bar itself is even shorter than the total width. I think the 36” version is closer to 33 3/8”.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



That is what I figured since I have heard the 24" is only actually around 22" of actual lighting. Taking a couple inches off the 36 would mean I would only need a few strips of tape on either side. It would still look dumb with the overhang though :icon_lol:. It's a rimmed tank so I would probably just use some sheet styrene to fabricate some legs to fit the rim. Is it possible to remove the legs on the 3.0?


I like that the Finnex 24/7 comes in 30", but the fixed 3 hour intervals for the 24/7 settings cause the light to stay on way too long unless I just set it to max on a timer.


----------



## Econde (Oct 13, 2015)

YTP said:


> That is what I figured since I have heard the 24" is only actually around 22" of actual lighting. Taking a couple inches off the 36 would mean I would only need a few strips of tape on either side. It would still look dumb with the overhang though :icon_lol:. It's a rimmed tank so I would probably just use some sheet styrene to fabricate some legs to fit the rim. *Is it possible to remove the legs on the 3.0?*
> 
> 
> I like that the Finnex 24/7 comes in 30", but the fixed 3 hour intervals for the 24/7 settings cause the light to stay on way too long unless I just set it to max on a timer.


Nope, or at least I have not been able to figure out how to take the legs off without disassembling. This is what I came up with. Not pretty by any means.


----------

