# 90 gallon vs 75 gallon



## Jackfrost (Jan 8, 2005)

I am amazed at how many people that own a AGA 75 G tank.

Why a 75 G and not a 90 G ?

They have the same foot print, use the same stands, and the 90 G gives a much better height to length ratio.

It takes the same amount of substrate to fill a 75 G as it does a 90 G. The equipment are the same, filter, heater, etc.

So....I am just curious to know and share with others why so many of you preferred a 75 G over a 90 G.

I will go first. I am setting up a 90 G now. I have a 65 G running and the 90 is basically the same dimensions as the 65 G only one foot longer.

I like the ratio, and I love the 24" height. Allows for the taller plants to really grow, and allows for some very nice aquascaping.

Nick


----------



## BlueRam (Sep 21, 2004)

I can see where you are going but consider that when buying a 4' tank most planted tank people would compare the 75 vs the 55 (or 50!) on the basis of width for planting. Going up to the 90 is another big step. For example I would love to have space for a 40 breeder which is painfully short but nice and wide. The other issue is cost. Think standard 10 gal and the taller 15H (sometimes 18H). The 10gal can be had for ~$10 where the 15H cost me $30! With the 90 I would expect the glass to be a little thicker etc...


----------



## Darla (Apr 1, 2004)

I suppose part of it would be the cost of the tank upfront. Some people like to stuff their aquariums full of fish *cough*, and would need a bigger filter. Not only that, but it's more weight per inch on the floor. My 55 gallon tank is in the only room in the house with a concrete floor, and I don't think I'd move it to any other room unless the floor was reinforced. Then there's the whole thing about buying whatever is available. I think 75 gallon tanks are a little more common than 90 gallon tanks. The 55 gallon is the largest size I've seen around here, and I'm not sure if the LPS takes special orders.


----------



## Jackfrost (Jan 8, 2005)

Very good arguments with respect to floor loading.

My local LFS's can't keep enough AGA 75 G's in stock !

When I ordered by 90G, he told me that I was the only one that year that ordered one. 

So 75's are pretty popular once you "break" the 55 G barrier.

P.S. Both my tanks are in my finished basement so loading is not an issue. But I can see how it would be other areas of the house.

Still, we are comparing 75 G to 90 G. The cost difference of the tanks is minimal.


----------



## rwong2k (Dec 24, 2004)

personally I went with the 90 gallon (only $20 diference frm the 90 and the 75 gallon at my LFS) that was an upgrade to my 66 (ish 3' tank)

3' lighting is harder (almost a pain) to find but with these t5's self ballast I'm playing with after installing them into a reflector for t5's these things are awesome...
anyways my brother just purchased a 75 gallon tank =)

oh well that was my set up about 4 yrs ago then I sold everthing, now i've started everything up again and I' using this 29/30 30" tank

I'm not quite too sure how different these aga tanks are compared to hagens/ all glass/ sea star something like that, (can i even find these tanks in canada?) 





Jackfrost said:


> Very good arguments with respect to floor loading.
> 
> My local LFS's can't keep enough AGA 75 G's in stock !
> 
> ...


----------



## Canoe2Can (Oct 31, 2004)

Having stepped up to a 24 inch tall tank, I don't think I'll ever go back when it comes to large tanks. I just love having the height to work with. Plus I'm 6' 2", so I don't like to be stooping over all the time. I guess if you're shorter, the 24 inch height might also make it harder to work in. But I can confidently say that I'll never buy another large tank that is less than 18 inches wide and 24 inches tall. Of course, what I really want is a 120 or 150 high. 

As for lighting, I don't think it's a real big challenge for any length anymore with the variety that's out there. 2 and 3 footers are easy to light with PCs, and 4 footers have a huge variety of T-8 and T-5 options. 5 foot though, hmm. That might be hard.


----------



## wantplantsnotwork (Nov 28, 2004)

Without a doubt, the porportions of the 90 are much better. 'Course, I'm biased, because I own one!
The only drawback is that it is a little more uncomfortable doing maintance on the back '40. I've got fairly long arms, so it's not too much of a problem. If you are short, it might be a factor.
As far as floor loading, pecentage wise, it's not so much different than the 70. If you were that close where the 70 works for you, but you fear the 90, you should not have the 70 either. I.E., if you think it will work for the 70, the 90 should not be a problem. Less than 200lbs, or a 1/4 pound per square inch in the footprint.


----------



## waterman (Jan 15, 2005)

When I bought my 75 gal it was on sale for 325 w/stand and hood the 90 was 450


----------



## Momotaro (Feb 21, 2003)

I like the 75G better.

The height is much easier for me. I can work in the aquarium without a stool quite easily. 

Not being a DIY enthusiast, I found it much easier to find lighting for the 75G.

Mike


----------



## Overfloater (Jan 12, 2004)

I'm in the market for an upgrade and have been debating 75G vs 90G. For me, the deciding factor seems to be the price of the tank itself. My LFS sells a 75G for $90, and a 90G is $180. I couldn't tell you why the price doubles for only 15G more. If I can find a better price on a 90G, I'll surely go that way as I like the extra height. It allows quite a few species of plant to grow to their maximum height.


----------



## Gill Man (Feb 5, 2005)

If money is not a big issue (in the initial investment), then perhaps the larger would suit you better. All other issues can be overcome if the height is what you desire. There really shouldn't be a floorboard issue unless you live in an ancient house. Floor joists are there for a reason: to transfer all the weight to the supporting (outside) walls. I have an acrylic 90 an acrylic 125 in an old apartment and both are on heavy oak stands. There isn't an issue with weight. I hate the height of the standard 125 tank and can't wait to upgrade to a 30" tall tank! You do need some longa** tweezers or a stool of some sort, though.


----------



## Piscesgirl (Jan 20, 2004)

Gill man, are you on the bottom floor or higher up? I'd surely be worried, myself!


----------



## Gill Man (Feb 5, 2005)

Higher up above the garage. If you set your aquarium perpendicular to the floor joists the weight is spread out over a large area which is then transferred to the supporting walls, that's how buildings are designed. Now if you have termites or a flood that weaken the floor joists, that's another matter. I'm actually thinking of purchasing my first home this year, then lookout! I'm gonna want really big and then I may have to add some extra floor support.


----------



## danmhippo (Feb 3, 2005)

If it were me, I would go for shallower tank than tall tanks. For a 4ft length, I would go with 75G, for a 5ft tank, I would go with 150G.

Personally, I felt it's more important to have the depth to a tank for more aquascaping possibilities. The height to be kept shallower for great light penetration, and ease of tank maintenances. 

I love cube tanks the best. A friend of mine has a cube tank 36x36x18 with a single 400W MH pendant. It was gorgeous.


----------



## wantplantsnotwork (Nov 28, 2004)

The light penetration is a myth that won't die. How much light attenuation do you think is going on in 6" of water????

My sword in just 6 weeks is close to topping out in my 90....

Sword for thought.....


----------



## Jackfrost (Jan 8, 2005)

Lots of good info.

I do agree that working on 24" high tank is a bit of a chalange, but the ratio of the tank makes up for it.

The 65 G and the 90G both look more like the ADA tank ratios.

I also like how the taller plants and really "show" when they have the extra height to grow.

Nick


----------



## Canoe2Can (Oct 31, 2004)

I think it's worth having some extra height to give your plants a chance to grow and you a chance to sit back and relax instead of cutting them all the time. In my 24 inch deep tank, the Heteranthera, Ludwigia, Myrio, and Ambulia all reach the top too often already. Since it's a small tank, I don't mind it too much, but if I were ever to get something large like a 120 or 180, I would be inclined to use very few stem plants.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 10, 2003)

Jackfrost said:


> The 65 G and the 90G both look more like the ADA tank ratios.
> Nick


Hmm, the actual dimensions and ratios of the ADA tanks better match a 75g and 58g, as opposed to 90g and 65g. 

120x45x45cm = ~48x18x18 = 75g
90x45x45cm = ~36x18x18 = 58g

I was faced the same decision before: 75 vs. 90. In the LFS they had both side by side, and the 90g looked enormous in comparison. I came away knowing the extra height would make maintenance more difficult. Plus the longer profile of the 75g just appealed to me. Got the 75.


----------



## Momotaro (Feb 21, 2003)

Just to expand on the question abit, anyone see the Oceanic 58Gs? 

I love them and would love to have one! Anyone else?

Mike


----------



## lumpyfunk (Dec 22, 2004)

I have a 90 Gallon, on a DIY stand that was desinged for a 75. If I were to do it again the only change I would make is to take about 6 inches off the stands height (it is 30 inches) just to make maintence easier.


----------



## danmhippo (Feb 3, 2005)

Can anybody tell me what's ADA? I don't suppose it's the American Dental Associations...........


----------



## Gill Man (Feb 5, 2005)

I think it's amano's company. I'm not sure what an ADA tank is and why that would matter. Yes, I would agree, a 90G on a 30" stand can be a bit difficult, especially with an additional 6" canopy rim. I have a 10" step and an ottoman nearby in case the need arises.


----------



## Jackfrost (Jan 8, 2005)

:icon_bigg :icon_bigg 

Maybe the "real" question should have been:

"How many of us are over 6ft ?"

:wink:


----------



## RoseHawke (Mar 10, 2004)

Jackfrost said:


> :icon_bigg :icon_bigg
> 
> Maybe the "real" question should have been:
> 
> ...


There is that. I'm 5'4", and I keep a stepstool handy to work in my 55. I had really wanted a 90 for the reasons already mentioned (extra height for plants primarily,) but I would have been severely challenged with one on a standard 30" stand. I'm thinking about a 125 now, but also thinking about building a shorter than normal stand so that it would be easier to work in. Also it would be closer to eye-level for seated viewing from the couches in the living room which is where it would be located.


----------



## Urkevitz (Jan 12, 2004)

I'm 6' 2" with abnormaly long arms, 75 is big enough for the apartment that I am in. Maybe I will get a 90 gallon when I buy a house. I am trying to convince my uncle to buy a 90 gallon for his new house, but he is convinced that it will leak.


----------



## lumpyfunk (Dec 22, 2004)

Jackfrost said:


> :icon_bigg :icon_bigg
> 
> Maybe the "real" question should have been:
> 
> ...


I am close. . .5' 11" and if I put a canopy on as well. . .might as well invest in a step ladder :icon_bigg


----------



## Overfloater (Jan 12, 2004)

I'm 6' right on the money. I put a deposit down yesterday on a 90G that I will be picking up this weekend. I don't think an extra 4" is going to matter for maintenance purposes. 4" isn't a whole lot of extra depth to work in but it's quite a bit for more plant growth. :icon_bigg


----------



## GulfCoastAquarian (Jul 30, 2002)

I'm a bigger fan of floorspace than height. I'd rather have room for a well-designated foregroun, mid-ground and background, than 2+ feet of height. 
There really isn't any light attenuation to speak of in anything less than a few feet, but when you do have a lot of tall stem plants, you do get quite a bit of dispersion, reflection and refraction that cuts down on the amount of light that makes it to the foreground. 
That's why two of my favorite sizes are the 40g breeder (short 55) and the 75g (short 90).


----------



## freeflyer (Feb 3, 2005)

I have a 150g thats 24 high and even with a chair to stand on I cannot plant the backwall with my hand without dipping my armpit into the water! I just got some 12" forceps to help with that. I like the height and would definately not go back for the shorter one, especially being a 6' wide tank and as mentioned the extra height lets your plants grow and to me looks more natural than having stunted looking hedges of plants.


----------



## BlueRam (Sep 21, 2004)

danmhippo said:


> Can anybody tell me what's ADA? I don't suppose it's the American Dental Associations...........


ADA is Aqua Design Amano (http://www.vectrapoint.com/index.html) which is a big force in the aquascaping industry.


----------



## danmhippo (Feb 3, 2005)

Thanks!

BTW, I am 6' 1".


----------



## cookingnerd607 (Jun 8, 2004)

6'7" I win!!! And yes, Id kill for a 110 High.


----------



## Jackfrost (Jan 8, 2005)

OK. I am 6' 2" so the 90 gallon was a normal choice for me. My 65 G is also 24" high. The long arms help too !.

I still have my long tongs, scissors and assorted other "long" tools to help.

But since some folks talked about dimensions.

What would be the "ideal" dimensions for you ? That is, based on your environment (space, floors, etc) ?

Nick


----------



## Urkevitz (Jan 12, 2004)

My dream tank would be a 4x4x4 monster cube, how many gallons would that be?


----------



## fishyboy (Nov 16, 2003)

that'd be 478.75 it's al lthe dememsions(in inches) divided my 231


----------



## Gill Man (Feb 5, 2005)

My dream is to be a 7' monster with nuckle-draggers....oh, wait, that's my avatar!

:fish:


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 5, 2003)

I have to agree with GulfCoastAquarian. I guess it also matters what you care about more, your glosso carpet or the stem plants. I had a 18 tall and hated it. For the same reason, when I plan to get my next tank, it will be a low profile tank. With 3" of substrate the 75 is exactly 2:1:1 ratio (perfect aquascaping ratio, better for photos).


----------



## Ibn (Nov 19, 2003)

Love my 90 gallon for the price that I got it for, the depth that naturally comes with it, and the fact that it was easy to light (migration of old equipment to new tank). Ratio for it is 1.5:1:1 (36x24x24). I'm only 5'8" and planting it is an issue only in the center back of the tank. Pretty easy to get around by working around the tank and the substrate depth is at around 3" to cut the height down to 21" (should have used another bag of pool filter sand to bulk the substrate depth even deeper).


----------



## Canoe2Can (Oct 31, 2004)

As for the dream tank size, I'd probably stick with the standard 120 (48 x 24 x 24). It would be nice to have bigger yet, but deeper than 24 might be hard to plant, especially with a 24 inch width. Plus I'd like a 4 foot long tank for the ease of lighting.

But I do wonder about one thing, how is a 75 gallon with 3 inches of gravel a perfect 2:1:1 ratio? 75 tank is 48 x 18 x 20, so minus three inches of gravel would be closer to 3:1:1. Or was that a typo?

And for those of us who just can't live without technical precision, a gallon of water is 230.4 cubic inches. That would make the 4 foot dream cube 480 gallons (now you can keep 2 extra neons in there!!!) :icon_bigg


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 5, 2003)

Woops, guess I was thinking about a 65 gallon (36 inx18 in
x24 in ). I'd still take the 75 because of the better lighting options.


----------

