# Eheim Classic media container: 2213 only, or others also?



## ron521 (May 12, 2008)

I purchased an Eheim 2213 7 or 8 years ago, and one feature which I liked was the included media container, sort of a white translucent Tupperware bucket which fit inside the green outer housing, and allowed all the media to be pulled out and carried to the sink for rinsing while leaving the green outer housing connected to the hoses. 

More recently, I've been thinking about a 2217 for a 75 gallon tank, but am uncertain as to whether they come with this media container or not. Some of the images online look as if the media is placed directly inside the green outer housing. I even called customer service at Big Als, and they told me that only the 2213 comes with the media container. 

However, the page for the 2217 on Aquariumguys.com does indicate a media container.

So, I'm somewhat puzzled. Can anyone confirm whether the 2217 does or does not in fact have the removeable media container?


----------



## kambrian (Feb 12, 2008)

My 2217 that I purchased at my LFS did not come with a removeable container. Just the the typical media, quick disconnects, hoses, etc.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

I just purchased 2 2217's and neither came with the aforementioned media basket. I looked at aquariumguys.com and, like you said, they state it does come with a "ready to use media basket." I've never seen these, nor have I heard of anyone talking about them, but that doesn't mean much. I'd be interested to hear from Lescarp., he seems to know _everything_ about eheim canisters.


----------



## dthb4438 (Nov 12, 2007)

I have a 2213 also and like the basket function. In fact, I would like to get a second basket already made up so I can just to the quick "presto-chango" thing and clean the dirty one up later. Just yesterday, I tried to get some of the fine filter pads for it, and couldn't find any. Had to buy a box of loose fine material for the Ehiems.


----------



## trackhazard (Aug 24, 2006)

I have purchased both 2217 and 2213 within the last year. The 2213 comes with a basket. Anything bigger (2215, 2217, 2260, etc) does not.

Charlie


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

ColeMan said:


> I'd be interested to hear from Lescarp., he seems to know _everything_ about eheim canisters.


Well,not everything,but I am getting to know the Classics pretty good.:wink:

OK,I will break my silence,and offer my 2 cents.

The 2213 is the only Classic to ever come with this "thing" in the filter,and it is a marketing response to all of the other filters that offer media baskets.Actually it is more like an insert,but it could also be called a single basket.This basket technology "glued" to the traditional Classic technology truly makes this filter an aberration to the Classic line.Lattice screens to convert this filter to a "true" Classic are available.

Personally,I don't like it at all,and the next time that I open my filter it goes into the trash.I have seen snails hold carnival between this basket and the canister,so I know that it allows at least some bypass,as opposed to all other Classics.I find that this basket does not aid in the cleaning either,because you must carry the whole filter to the sink anyhow.In addition,if you make the mistake of trying to lift this basket full of soggy media out by using the flimsy handle it will almost certainly break.

Other than this basket,this is a very nice filter,virtually silent,but subject of course to it's output limitations.


----------



## fshfanatic (Apr 20, 2006)

I have the 2213 as well and I have been looking for the two lattice pieces so I can drop the basket

I agree with Les.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

lescarpentier said:


> Well,not everything,but I am getting to know the Classics pretty good.:wink:


Didn't someone say something about "intimately"...? :hihi: 



> I have seen snails hold carnival between this basket and the canister,so I know that it allows at least some bypass...


Did you take video proof? Actually I don't care about proof, I just want to see snails holding carnival!!!

I'm actually curious about what the media basket looks like- anyone have pics?

Not to hijack (too late now?), but how's the testing coming, Les?


----------



## John7429 (Jan 11, 2008)

only the 2213 includes the media basket according to my understanding.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

lauraleellbp said:


> Didn't someone say something about "intimately"...? :hihi:


Well.....We are family.:icon_redf



lauraleellbp said:


> Did you take video proof? Actually I don't care about proof, I just want to see snails holding carnival!!!


I will leave that to your imagination Laura,but yes,it is true.:wink:



lauraleellbp said:


> I'm actually curious about what the media basket looks like- anyone have pics?






lauraleellbp said:


> Not to hijack (too late now?), but how's the
> testing coming, Les?


I expanded on my original goals,so I am waiting for another parts shipment,this one from Big Als,which was shipped today.I will post a thread sometime next week.


----------



## ron521 (May 12, 2008)

If the 2217 does not come with a media container, and if a media container is not available for the 2217 separately, then it looks as if I won't be buying a 2217 after all. Lack of a media container is a deal-breaker for me.
Kind of disappointing, really, as I found the media container on my 2213 to be a major convenience. If it allows a degree of bypass, I can live with it (although I never actually had a snail party).
Perhaps I may buy a second 2213 and use them together on my 75...or perhaps I'll just buy some other filter...


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

First of all, sorry to hear that the lack of a media container is a deal-breaker. Second of all, after following your link to aquariumguys.com yesterday and looking at their 2217, it seems as though they are in fact selling it with a media container, which is very strange. I want to get to the bottom of this, so I tried calling AG...they had no idea what to tell me; as a matter of fact, the girl I spoke with couldn't be sure that it in fact did come with the basket (as advertised on their website). So...I sent an e-mail to see what's going on, and I asked them if it was possible to get the lattice pieces by themselves...I'll update when I hear something.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

ColeMan said:


> First of all, sorry to hear that the lack of a media container is a deal-breaker. Second of all, after following your link to aquariumguys.com yesterday and looking at their 2217, it seems as though they are in fact selling it with a media container, which is very strange. I want to get to the bottom of this, so I tried calling AG...they had no idea what to tell me; as a matter of fact, the girl I spoke with couldn't be sure that it in fact did come with the basket (as advertised on their website). So...I sent an e-mail to see what's going on, and I asked them if it was possible to get the lattice pieces by themselves...I'll update when I hear something.


No need for further inquiry.As I indicated earlier,the only Classic available with a basket is the 2213.The 2217 is a large filter with a media capacity of 6 liters,so obviously a basket full of media would be very heavy,so it would not be practical.The lattice screens are available as replacements for all of the Classics,however the screens for the 2213 are a little more difficult to find.Simply cutting off the outside ring of a 2215 screen will give you a carbon copy of the 2213 lattice screen.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

always one step ahead on the eheims, les. thanks! I wonder why they're advertising all of their classics with the baskets? just trying to confuse people, I guess!


----------



## ron521 (May 12, 2008)

"a basket full of media would be very heavy,so it would not be practical"

So, how heavy is the 2217 green outer housing when it is carried to the sink, full of media? Alternatively, just how is servicing performed on the 2217?


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

I would imagine that the weight is contingent upon 1) the type of media used (obviously a canister full of filter floss isn't going to weight as much as one full of ceramic media) and 2) the amount of nastiness accrued in your filter since the last cleaning! 

Here's a great link for eheim classic maintenance:

http://www.rexgrigg.com/Eheim%20Classic%20Canister%20instructions.htm


----------



## deeda (Jun 28, 2005)

If you want a media container just get a media bag to put your media in. That's what I use for my 2217. It doesn't take me any longer to clean the 2217 than it does the 2028. A kitchen colander dedicated to fish only use is very helpful when performing filter maintenance. I've also discovered baby fish in my filters when draining them for cleaning. This happens both in my Eheims & in Aquaclear filters.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

ColeMan said:


> I would imagine that the weight is contingent upon 1) the type of media used (obviously a canister full of filter floss isn't going to weight as much as one full of ceramic media) and 2) the amount of nastiness accrued in your filter since the last cleaning!


That filter floss is heavy too when it is soaked with water.



ron521 said:


> "a basket full of media would be very heavy,so it would not be practical" So, how heavy is the 2217 green outer housing when it is carried to the sink, full of media? Alternatively, just how is servicing performed on the 2217?


The outer housing is heavily constructed,while the insert is lightly constructed.The outer housing will easily support the weight.

When I service the Classics I carry them to the sink for cleaning.I have the choice of either back flushing,or entirely removing the media for a more thorough cleaning.You mentioned in an earlier post that you would only remove the basket for cleaning,and leave the rest of the filter attached.This is a bad idea because every time that the filter is opened you must also clean the impeller and the impeller well.This is especially important with the 2213 because they have a cooling channel insert that must be kept clean.

Furthermore,I can't imagine anybody on their knees working in the cramped quarters of an aquarium stand trying to lift out a slimy basket full of nasty dripping media,and then carrying it to the sink anyway.I use the provided quick disconnects to detach the filter from the plumbing and remove the entire filter for proper servicing and maintenance.


----------



## fshfanatic (Apr 20, 2006)

ron521 said:


> "a basket full of media would be very heavy,so it would not be practical"
> 
> So, how heavy is the 2217 green outer housing when it is carried to the sink, full of media? Alternatively, just how is servicing performed on the 2217?


Depends on the weight of the media itself. I have a 2217 and absolutely love it.

If a disabled, crippled old fart like myself can handle it, I am sure you wont have any issues.

I back flush the unit once every three months or so and replace the floss. Takes a total of 5-7 minutes from the time I disconnect it till the time I reconnect it.

Every 6 months or so I really clean it it out and this takes about 15 minutes.

Dont let the fact that it doesnt have a media container change your mind. This canister has been on the market for close to 15 yrs or so and is proven to be easy to maintain and will last forever.


----------



## ron521 (May 12, 2008)

On my 2213, I purposely left the hoses a little long, so that I can physically pull it out from the closed compartment at the bottom of the aquarium cabinet. 
The canister stands in a rectangular plastic tray which catches any stray drips as the pump head is removed from the bottom, and I just lift out the media container and carry it into the kitchen, usually wrapped in a piece of newspaper. 
Admittedly, I don't clean the impeller every time I service the unit, although, yes, I really should.
However, I really see the media container as simplifying media changes, and I like it better than a bag, although I am not sure why. 
So, if, as it seems, that the media container is only available on the 2213, then I may purchase a second 2213 and run them in parallel on my 75 gallon tank.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

I know it really doesn't matter at this point, as Les has us pretty much straightened out on the eheims, but, I did here back from the tech support guy at aquariumguys.com. From his e-mail:

Unfortunately I am not fully familiar with this product. My best suggestion
for technical questions is to contact the manufacturer directly. I apologize
for all the inconvenience. Thank you for your time and have a great day.

So I know this isn't helpful with the OP's question per se, but it does, in my opinion, say something about AG.com; essentially that they're not going to give you some BS answer to try to get you to buy something - something I really appreciate. My guess is that the guy designing the web page found 1 picture of the eheim classic (the 2213) and used it for all 3 models, confusing the hell out of those who aren't explicitly familiar with the product line...A post on another thread suggested that I contact all vendors before making a purchase, and I think this drives that point home: Make sure you know exactly what you're getting before you finalize an order, and if you can, physically speak with a vendor.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

I just looked at the aquariumguys.com add and I could determine by the proportions that they use the photo of the 2213.I also thought that it was funny that in the adds for the 2250 and 2260 they don't even show the 2213 at all,but instead show the 2211 which is no longer available to us in the US.LOL


----------



## turdb0 (Apr 11, 2008)

I got a Eheim Classic 2213 that must be at least 5 years old. Not sure if the designed has changed. This was thrown in with the used fishtank I bought so I decided to see if it works. It looks like the impeller still works when I plug in the power. The only thing that appears to be missing is the "media basket". Do I need this media basket for the filter to work properly? I know the 2215 or 2217 DONT have these media baskets. If I don't get a replacement media basket, can I just use one of the lattice screens from a 2217, or not using any screens at all? Or would that defeat the purpose of the filter.

Thanks.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

lesc.? where are you?


----------



## fshfanatic (Apr 20, 2006)

turdb0 said:


> The only thing that appears to be missing is the "media basket". Do I need this media basket for the filter to work properly? I know the 2215 or 2217 DONT have these media baskets. If I don't get a replacement media basket, can I just use one of the lattice screens from a 2217, or not using any screens at all? Or would that defeat the purpose of the filter.
> 
> Thanks.


It will work perfectly without the media basket. You just have to get the lattice screens. If you can find the one made for the 2213 you can buy the ones for the 2215 and trim the outer ring and it will function.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

Wouldn't you say that it will probably work better without the basket, fsh? No bypass, eh?


----------



## turdb0 (Apr 11, 2008)

I'm wondering if the impeller is supposed to draw water down the center of the media and back up the sides. So if there's no "space" on the bottom, it would be difficult for this water flow? I haven't really looked at the filter in detail.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

ColeMan said:


> Wouldn't you say that it will probably work better without the basket, fsh? No bypass, eh?


It is certainly more efficient without the basket.:icon_winkThe basket is definitely loose enough to allow significant bypass.



turdb0 said:


> I'm wondering if the impeller is supposed to draw water down the center of the media and back up the sides. So if there's no "space" on the bottom, it would be difficult for this water flow? I haven't really looked at the filter in detail.


Look at any Classic and you can answer your own question.The water enters from the bottom where it is supposed to,and is then drawn up through the media.


----------



## fshfanatic (Apr 20, 2006)

ColeMan said:


> Wouldn't you say that it will probably work better without the basket, fsh? No bypass, eh?


It is much more efficient and holds more media as well, and yes, no bypass.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

ColeMan said:


> lesc.? where are you?


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

Ha! I was wondering where you were - I guessing your quick appearance is the result of you "sensing" there was an eheim user in distress somewhere?


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

ColeMan said:


> Ha! I was wondering where you were - I guessing your quick appearance is the result of you "sensing" there was an eheim user in distress somewhere?


Yeah,tis true,but I see that fsh is already holding the fort and doing a remarkable job at it.

I love Eheim threads!


----------



## turdb0 (Apr 11, 2008)

To the Bat Cave!

EDIT: Replace Bat with Eheim


----------



## ron521 (May 12, 2008)

turdb0 said:


> I got a Eheim Classic 2213 that must be at least 5 years old. Not sure if the designed has changed. This was thrown in with the used fishtank I bought so I decided to see if it works. It looks like the impeller still works when I plug in the power. The only thing that appears to be missing is the "media basket". Do I need this media basket for the filter to work properly? I know the 2215 or 2217 DONT have these media baskets. If I don't get a replacement media basket, can I just use one of the lattice screens from a 2217, or not using any screens at all? Or would that defeat the purpose of the filter.
> 
> Thanks.


If you look carefully at the green lower housing of your 2213, you will notice that on the inside, near the securing clips, there is a narrow ridge or "shelf" about 1/8" wide, which runs around the circumference of the inner wall.

The media container (which you don't yet have) has a corresponding lip running around the top edge which, when the media container is inserted in the lower housing, rests on top of this "shelf".

When the motor housing is inserted into the green lower housing, the lip on the media container is sandwiched between the lower surface of the motor housing and the ridge on the green lower housing, which effectively seals water from bypassing the container. 

With the securing clips fastened, you can shake the whole assembly vertically, and the media container will not move, as there is no vertical room for it to move. This also means that there is no easy path for water to get around the container. The easiest path is through the media in the container as Eheim intended. 

To be sure, there is a small space for water around the media container below the lip, but that water cannot easily find a way above the lip, the seal is simply too good. 

Anyone with a 2213 and a media container can test this statement by putting a plastic sandwich bag over the lower part of the media container and securing it with a rubber band. You can also perform the test using a couple of layers of saran wrap or an equivalent plastic film.

If you do this, you will find that you have extreme difficulty drawing in enough water to even prime the filter, thus proving that the lip at the top of the media container seals sufficiently well to allow no significant bypass.

A similar design has been used for years as a cylinder head gasket for many motorcycles as well as the EMD engines in diesel locomotives. 
It is a beautifully simple and effective design.

To answer your question, you CAN use larger lattice screens if you wish, cut down appropriately. You can also purchase lattice screens to fit the 2213 although I've heard they are not easy to find.

If you do operate without the media container, you will have to also cut down any filter pads or sponges you use from a larger size, as the ones for the 2213 are intended to fit the inside of the media container, so are a loose fit inside the green lower housing.

Using the media container circumvents all these issues, allowing you to buy pads off the shelf. It also greatly simplifies periodic maintainence. I use mine and like it. Some people don't like them. 

The only way to know for sure if it suits you is to try one and see for yourself.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

I simply can't believe that the media basket allows for zero bypass...it doesn't make any sense. As a matter of fact, I would go out on a limb and speculate the eheim wouldn't make this type of claim either...however, I will grant you the fact that this statement: 


ron521 said:


> The only way to know for sure if it suits you is to try one and see for yourself.


leaves no room for disagreement...


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

ColeMan said:


> I simply can't believe that the media basket allows for zero bypass...it doesn't make any sense. As a matter of fact, I would go out on a limb and speculate the eheim wouldn't make this type of claim either...however, I will grant you the fact that this statement:
> 
> leaves no room for disagreement...


You're absolutely right.
That basket wasn't made to very tight tolerances,and the pump head does not fit firmly against that lip.In addition,there is plenty of room between the basket and the canister to allow pond snails to take up residence there.What a waste of valuable media space!

Significant bypass? For a filter that barely pumps 100 gallons an hour even a few of gallons per hour is significant.This coupled with the roughly 20% gain in media capacity leaves little room for debate.


----------



## ron521 (May 12, 2008)

I actually performed the test as I described, so I can authoritatively state that there is not enough water available flowing around that lip to even prime the filter. This should qualify in any reasonable persons mind as "negligible" or "insignificant" bypass.

However, I am hardly surprised the Les would gainsay my statements, even though he has NOT performed the test as I did, but is merely offering his armchair speculation

Sorry Les, but you are simply WRONG in this matter. Your opinion is based on nothing but conjecture, and is not backed up by any actual measurement or test, so is therefore worthless. Deal with it.

Go ahead, perform the test as I described, and post your results on this thread. In fact, why don't we open it up for everyone who owns a 2213 to perform the same test, and post their results as well.

In this manner, we can use the scientific method to reach a consensus as to whether there is any significant bypass around the media container.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

ron521 said:


> Sorry Les, but you are simply WRONG in this matter. Your opinion is based on nothing but conjecture, and is not backed up by any actual measurement or test, so is therefore worthless. Deal with it.


Well isn't his just the pot calling the kettle black! Perhaps you should do a bit more research before calling someone's thoughts "conjecture, not backed up by any actual measurement or test..." 
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/equipment/66063-eheim-2213-removing-media-basket-increase.html


----------



## turdb0 (Apr 11, 2008)

I just looked at it all in detail last night and Les, I did find the lattice screens in a box somewhere. I thought they were junk, hehe. It seems like the previous owner already did away with the media basket. Now I get to put it all together and try it out when I go dig up some media.

Thanks all.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Seems the ability to disagree without getting rude and personal is quite a challenge... it's a pretty good life skill IMO, however.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

ron521 said:


> I actually performed the test as I described, so I can authoritatively state that there is not enough water available flowing around that lip to even prime the filter. This should qualify in any reasonable persons mind as "negligible" or "insignificant" bypass.


Any bypass is significant.With the Classics we expect 0% bypass,and people like me will not settle for any bypass whatsoever.The lack of rubber seals for prevention pretty much guarantees that there will be some bypass.



ron521 said:


> However, I am hardly surprised the Les would gainsay my statements, even though he has NOT performed the test as I did, but is merely offering his armchair speculation


Test? What kind of testing have you done? Anybody with an inkling of sense knows that you will need full,or near full flow to prime this filter.Therefore your test is flawed from the beginning.I witnessed the movement of particles between the basket and the canister,which clearly indicates bypass to me.



ron521 said:


> Sorry Les, but you are simply WRONG in this matter. Your opinion is based on nothing but conjecture, and is not backed up by any actual measurement or test, so is therefore worthless. Deal with it.


Is it your mission to attempt to prove me wrong and to discredit my work? Spend your time wisely instead,and post test results for the Penguin HOB filters that you so strongly advocate.



ron521 said:


> Go ahead, perform the test as I described, and post your results on this thread. In fact, why don't we open it up for everyone who owns a 2213 to perform the same test, and post their results as well.


Sorry,but the testing on the 2213 has been concluded.I posted my findings and threw the slimy basket into the trash.I am convinced of my findings,and you are free to disagree with them.You have never owned a Classic that has no basket so you don't know what to expect.Maybe you can be happy with an aberration,but I can't.
If the baskets were so good,why are they conspicuously absent in the other Classics? 




turdb0 said:


> I just looked at it all in detail last night and Les, I did find the lattice screens in a box somewhere. I thought they were junk, hehe. It seems like the previous owner already did away with the media basket. Now I get to put it all together and try it out when I go dig up some media.
> 
> Thanks all.


I am glad that you found them,and you are fortunate that the previous owner saw fit to eliminate this basket.
Without the basket your 2213 is a TRUE Classic.:wink:


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

I found some 2213 lattices: http://www.petblvd.com/cgi-bin/pb/EHP72210.html?mv_pc=froogle

I got this info from Eheim:
"The EHEIM 2213 requires the use of two lattice screen item # 7273050. Unfortunately the coarse pads for the actual 2213 are too small to fit this setup therefore you will need to purchase EHEIM 2215 or EHEIM ECCO filter pads and cut them in order to fit this unit. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further assistance. 

Yours truly, 

Ernesto Cedeno

Technical Support"


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

Hey LeftC - do you have anything to add about your own personal experiences with this particular filter (as far as the media basket/bypass are concerned)? 

I've tried to email eheim and whenever I submit my message I'm redirected to an error page...when I call I'm on hold for a while, then transferred to an anonymous voice mailbox...am I missing something? Do you have a direct e-mail address for eheim customer support?


----------



## ron521 (May 12, 2008)

ColeMan said:


> Well isn't his just the pot calling the kettle black! Perhaps you should do a bit more research before calling someone's thoughts "conjecture, not backed up by any actual measurement or test..."
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/equipment/66063-eheim-2213-removing-media-basket-increase.html


Thanks for the link ColeMan, but I had already read this thread, and there is no qualitative mention made of bypass, only that snails lived in the space between the canister housing and the media container.

Therefore, it is not relevant to the topic under discussion, specifically, how much water bypasses the media container.

However, I extend to you the same invitation which I extended to Les, namely, conduct the test as I did, and post YOUR results here.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

Unfortunately I don't own a 2213...but maybe someday...And on that day, you;d better believe I'll be screwing around with it trying to answer the question for myself. I'd like to see what eheim has to say about this; I've got another question for them and figured I might as well ask...In this situation, since I don't own the filter in question, I can only speculate as to what makes sense to me. It still leaves one wondering: if they are so useful, as les asked earlier, why hasn't the design made its way into the rest of the classic line?


----------



## ron521 (May 12, 2008)

"Is it your mission to attempt to prove me wrong and to discredit my work?"

Life lesson: When you are in the wrong, expect to be corrected by those who know better.

"Sorry,but the testing on the 2213 has been concluded."

If that is so, then your testing of the 2213 was incomplete and therefore inadequate. Since your testing did not quantify bypass, you make yourself sound massively ignorant when you state that bypass around the media container is "significant".

To state that "any bypass is significant" is meaningless, because you can only approach "zero" bypass, you can never truly achieve it. 

The very best you can even hope for is for MOST of the water to pass through the media, whether the media is inside the media container, or just dumped into the outer housing in layers. 

At no time will ALL the water pass through the media. At least some small part of the water will flow right up the inner wall, taking the path of least resistance and moving around the media instead of through it. You would know this if you had taken a class in, say, hydrogeology.

In the context of THIS discussion, bypass would ONLY be significant if it made a measurable difference in the quality of the water in your tank.

And, to paraphrase your own terminology, anyone with any sense at all would realize that the water entering the canister housing creates turbulence in the space between the media container and the outer housing, in fact, it is not possible for the water entering the canister to NOT create turbulence. 
This could easily account for the "particles" which you claim you saw moving.
There are several other potential causes as well, none of which are related to bypass. 

Bottom line: you are STILL wrong. If you don't have actual hands-on empirical information to contribute to the topic under consideration (specifically, bypass around the media container), then go home. Don't go home mad, just go home. :icon_mrgr


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

ColeMan said:


> Hey LeftC - do you have anything to add about your own personal experiences with this particular filter (as far as the media basket/bypass are concerned)?
> 
> I've tried to email Eheim and whenever I submit my message I'm redirected to an error page...when I call I'm on hold for a while, then transferred to an anonymous voice mailbox...am I missing something? Do you have a direct e-mail address for Eheim customer support?


Hi Coleman

I only asked Eheim if I needed one or two lattices and if any specific media was available for it. This was on May 28. I didn't ask them anything else.

I just bought a new 2213 with installation kits 1 and 2, but I haven't used it yet. 

I tried to contact them yesterday about the Euro/Asian 240v 2236 ECCO that I bought. I got the error message too.

This is the contact info that I have:
Customer Inquiry: http://eheim.com/base/eheim/inhalte/form_customer.html

Ernesto Cedeno
Technical Support
[email protected] 
http://www.eheim.com/
EHEIM North America Reg.

North American Headquarters
4226 St. Jean Blvd. Suite 209 
Dollard Des Ormeaux, Quebec H9G 1X5
Canada
Phone: 888-EHEIMNA - 888-343-4662
Fax: 514-624-2227


*EDIT:* I just tried the contact Eheim link and I got an error page again.

I believe that this other link works though: [email protected] 

Here's some more links: http://www.eheim.de/eheim/inhalte/index.jsp?key=kontakt_18244_ehen


----------



## fshfanatic (Apr 20, 2006)

Ok, Since I own a 2213 with the media basket and had nothing better to do today, I did the following:
1: Took a large plastic bag and placed it over the bottom of the media tray and secured it with a few rubber bands.
2: Set the filter back up and turned the sucker on.

It took a long while to fill as the MAIN path of the water (through) the media would have to be *bypassed* to fill the canister. Which it most certainly was. Turned it on and from what I could tell, it lost close to 70% or so of it power. 

I am no expert on this matter but that would lead me to believe that when the media is blocked it has a 30%ish bypass capability. Now, if you block the media with the same filter, the 2213 using the lattice screens, the canister would not fill and you would not get water pumped back into the tank. It would be physically impossible.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

Nice work fsh...that's the result I would have expected.


----------



## ron521 (May 12, 2008)

I'm curious fsh, how exactly did you arrive at the 70% figure? Did you collect water in a container of known volume over a measured interval of time? Or, was this a visual estimate based on the size of the output stream? Perhaps some other method?

I do appreciate you taking the time to perform this experiment, as some people apparantly can't be bothered.


----------



## PDX-PLT (Feb 14, 2007)

These are the innards of the 2217:


----------



## fshfanatic (Apr 20, 2006)

ron521 said:


> I'm curious fsh, how exactly did you arrive at the 70% figure? Did you collect water in a container of known volume over a measured interval of time? Or, was this a visual estimate based on the size of the output stream? Perhaps some other method?
> 
> I do appreciate you taking the time to perform this experiment, as some people apparantly can't be bothered.


It was a questimate based on the flow. Already knowing what the flow should have been, I mentally compared the two.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

ron521 said:


> * Bottom line: you are STILL wrong.* If you don't have actual hands-on empirical information to contribute to the topic under consideration (specifically, bypass around the media container),* then go home. Don't go* *home mad, just go home. *:icon_mrgr





ron521 said:


> *I'm curious fsh, how exactly did you arrive at the* *70% figure?* Did you collect water in a container of known volume over a measured interval of time? Or, was this a visual estimate based on the size of the output stream? Perhaps some other method?
> *I do appreciate you taking the time to perform this experiment*, as some people apparantly can't be bothered.





ron521 said:


> * Sorry Les, but you are simply WRONG in this matter. Your opinion is based on nothing but conjecture, and is not backed up by any actual measurement or test, so is therefore worthless. Deal with it.*





ron521 said:


> *Thanks for the link ColeMan, *
> However, I extend to you the same invitation which I extended to Les, namely, conduct the test as I did, and post YOUR results here.





ron521 said:


> I actually performed the test as I described, *so I can authoritatively state that there is not enough water available flowing around that lip to even prime the filter.* This should qualify in any reasonable persons mind as "negligible" or "insignificant" bypass.
> * However, I am hardly surprised the Les would gainsay my statements, even though he has NOT performed the test as I did, but is merely offering his armchair speculation*





ron521 said:


> "
> * Life lesson: When you are in the wrong, expect to be corrected by those who know better.*



Selective manners? 
Flip flop?
"Life lesson"?


----------



## ron521 (May 12, 2008)

Still no first hand data regarding bypass? Then your opinion regarding bypass is still worthless. 

fsh actually DID the experiment, and although he obtained a different result than I did, I can at least respect his results and chalk up the difference to a looser fit on his media container. Who knows why? Different molding tolerance? Change in the design of the conatainer from when mine was made 8 years ago and whenever his was made? Some other reason?

You, on the other hand, refused to attempt the test, and lost serious credibility by so doing. 

I stand by all my statements which you have quoted, and offer you one more:
On this topic, you are speaking out of ignorance, not out of experience. While you may have made some other contributions to this forum, on THIS topic, you simply don't know what you are talking about, and until you perform some hands-on experiments of your own to quantify bypass around the media container, as fsh did, I don't respect your opinion on the subject in the least.

That is my final word to you on this topic. Clearly, someone is going to have to be the bigger man and let the discussion drop, and it clearly isn't going to be you. I'll discuss it with anyone else who cares to, but you aren't worth any further time. Reply or don't, go home or don't, you simply aren't relevant any more.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

ron521 said:


> Still no first hand data regarding bypass? Then your opinion regarding bypass is still worthless.


It's not worthless to me.



ron521 said:


> fsh actually DID the experiment, and although he obtained a different result than I did, I can at least respect his results and chalk up the difference to a looser fit on his media container. Who knows why? Different molding tolerance? Change in the design of the conatainer from when mine was made 8 years ago and whenever his was made? *Some* *other reason?*


This is a thinly veiled attack on fsh's findings too,however you use a little more tact when dealing with him.
Selective manners *again?*




ron521 said:


> You, on the other hand, refused to attempt the test, and lost serious credibility by so doing.


I am not refusing,however I no longer have a basket with which to conduct this test.Actually the thought never occurred to me while conducting the other tests,and the fact that bypass was evident was good enough for me,but I now regret the omission.As for the serious "loss of credibility",well,your opinion means absolutely nothing to me.I spent a lot of time and money doing various tests on the Classics,and I shared my results here on the forum,never asking anything in return,or expecting these kind of juvenile attacks.




ron521 said:


> I stand by all my statements which you have quoted, and offer you one more:
> On this topic, you are speaking out of ignorance, not out of experience. While you may have made some other contributions to this forum, on THIS topic, you simply don't know what you are talking about, and until you perform some hands-on experiments of your own to quantify bypass around the media container, as fsh did, I don't respect your opinion on the subject in the least.


Whatever...I don't care if you do respect my opinion,and I certainly do not respect yours.It is you who is ignorant,and refuse to believe anything that is not in line with your own imaginings.All that you have offered here is words,your words,and you expect everybody to believe you? Without a doubt there is significant bypass.I ask you again,why are these baskets not used on the other Classics?



ron521 said:


> Reply or don't, go home or don't, you simply aren't relevant any more.


This is debatable,and you are entitled to your opinion regardless of it's worth.:icon_wink


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Damn ... ROFLMAF!


----------



## mott (Nov 23, 2006)

You guy's hehe ...I love a good read bravo

I'm curious Les, Do you think that the ecco line has significant bypass?
I have a ton of snails on the sides of the baskets.
However the impeller cover meets with the top of the basket and it looks to me like it would be tough to get bypass here.
I haven't found any "snail party's" going on by the impeller.

Any idea? I ask because you claim that only the classic line has no bypass.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

mott said:


> You guy's hehe ...I love a good read bravo
> 
> I'm curious Les, Do you think that the ecco line has significant bypass?
> I have a ton of snails on the sides of the baskets.
> ...


Well,I think that any bypass is significant,however,if your filter is big enough everything will be OK.

If there is no rubber seal where the basket contacts the lid you can be assured of some bypass.I would like to get my hands on an ECCO to study them more carefully,and someday I will.Until I see otherwise,I am convinced beyond a doubt that all filters with baskets allow bypass.


----------



## DaveS (Mar 2, 2008)

How about this: if you like using the basket in your filter, then use it. When all is said and done, if the filter is doing what you want then it is good enough despite any loss in efficiency. I have to admit, one of the main reasons I went with the Eheim 2026 (Pro II line) is because it has baskets. Having used a Fluval 404 for years, that is just the way I learned to fill and maintain a cannister filter. I am sure that my 2026 has more bypass than a 2217 for example, but honestly it doesn't bother me, and it actually works unlike my previous filter  .

Dave


----------



## mott (Nov 23, 2006)

It's been a while since I opened it up but I do not beleive there is no rubber seal.
If you ever get an ecco I would love to see the results.
I would do a study/test for it but I'm way too lazy lol.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Couldn't you wrap a layer of filter floss around the media basket and reduce some of the bypass?

This would put a layer of filter floss between the ID of the 2213's wall and the OD of the 2213's media basket.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

Left C said:


> Couldn't you wrap a layer of filter floss around the media basket and reduce some of the bypass?
> 
> This would put a layer of filter floss between the ID of the 2213's wall and the OD of the 2213's media basket.


This is a great idea!! 
At least the bypassed water will be filtered by some floss,so in essence you will be eliminating bypass.
I like it.roud:


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

You could use a few rubber bands to hold the filter floss in place.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

Left C said:


> Couldn't you wrap a layer of filter floss around the media basket and reduce some of the bypass?
> 
> This would put a layer of filter floss between the ID of the 2213's wall and the OD of the 2213's media basket.


I like this too, as it would work for any filter with a removable media basket. Nice thinking.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Seems like it would get tedious and messy to change, though?


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Here's another thought, but I don't know if it is correct or not. ... Maybe it is, maybe not?

When it's time to service the filter, you could toss the filter floss (it's pretty nasty, I suppose); then do a back flush and maybe you wouldn't have to service what's inside the basket(s) as often. Then add more floss around the basket(s) and start it back up.

I would guess that the maintenance service levels would be shorter because of the additional filter floss, but your media in the baskets would last longer. 

This would be somewhat like a prefilter inside the filter.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

lauraleellbp said:


> Seems like it would get tedious and messy to change, though?


Why?
You would change it when you did your normal servicing,and it wouldn't be any more nasty than any of the other floss or sponges.

Regardless,it is a simple and excellent way to improve the efficiency of basket style filters.


----------



## lescarpentier (Feb 2, 2008)

Left C said:


> When it's time to service the filter, you could toss the filter floss (it's pretty nasty, I suppose); then do a back flush


 The only basket style filter that can be back flushed is the 2213.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

That's true on the 2213, but ...


ColeMan said:


> I like this too, as it would work for any filter with a removable media basket. Nice thinking.


----------



## fshfanatic (Apr 20, 2006)

If I hadnt sold my 2213 to a member here. (He prepaid so I could get my 2215 and I am shipping it tomorrow) I would simply replace the basket with lattice screens and call it good.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Left C said:


> When it's time to service the filter, you could toss the filter floss (it's pretty nasty, I suppose); then do a back flush





lescarpentier said:


> The only basket style filter that can be back flushed is the 2213.





Left C said:


> That's true on the 2213, but ...
> 
> 
> ColeMan said:
> ...


Thanks!

After I thought about your response, I figured out why.

The Classics have their intake on the bottom and the output on the top and back flushing is easy.

The other filters have both of their inputs and outputs on top. You can't back flush them.

I feel so stupid for posting my response without really thinking about it.:icon_redf 

Thanks again!
Left C


----------



## Jimmyblues (Dec 16, 2010)

*The Media Basket On The Eheim 2213 Is Great*



ron521 said:


> If the 2217 does not come with a media container, and if a media container is not available for the 2217 separately, then it looks as if I won't be buying a 2217 after all. Lack of a media container is a deal-breaker for me.
> 
> Kind of disappointing, really, as I found the media container on my 2213 to be a major convenience. If it allows a degree of bypass, I can live with it (although I never actually had a snail party).
> Perhaps I may buy a second 2213 and use them together on my 75...or perhaps I'll just buy some other filter...


 
I also find that the media basket in the 2213 is very useful in quickly cleaning this filter's media. I remove the fiber portion of the filter at the top and clean it under tap water, then pour tank or filtered water over the rest of the filter media to clean the gunk out. 

The entire process takes all of 5 minutes. The 2213 is a great little filter.

I wish that the entire Classic line had the basket, since having to empty all of the filter media to clean takes much longer than with the media basket.

As nice as the larger Classics are, I think many fishkeepers who purchase other filters because they have media trays, would instead purchase the 2215 and 2217 if they also included media trays. The Classics are also known for their reliability.

I have read of so many fishkeepers who purchased some of the more elaborate (and expensive) Eheim filters with features like internal heaters and self priming pumps, only to find that they malfunctioned within a year or two of owning them. When you spend more than $200 on an aquarium filter you'd like to know that is not only going to last for many years, but that provided that it is properly maintained, will also be reliable.


----------



## sayurasem (Jun 17, 2011)

To revive the thread... Is there anywhere I can buy the screens for my 2213 eheim? I would like to dump the bucket because of bypass and less media volume is an issue. Plus I broke the hinge on the basket... that thing is weak.

+ What blue pad should I use now? maybe 2215 and cut to size?


----------



## Green_Flash (Apr 15, 2012)

If your Eheim does not have a media basket another good option would be to place each media in a media bag or laundry bag for quick and easy changing /swapping and rinsing.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

I use several 2217 and I don't like having to deal with the loose media one handful at a time. But then it is pretty easy to put it in a bag and solve the problem. I leave the media in the bag and just swish it up and down in a bucket when I clean. 

For all the good points I find with the Classic line, I'm willing to pay an extra dollar for a bag once in a while. My wife has even been known to sew one up out of wedding veil when I got a used filter without the bag on hand.


----------

