# Best Rectangular Tank Size?



## BlueRam (Sep 21, 2004)

scolley said:


> So, I have three questions.
> 
> 
> What dimension tank lends itself best to a beautiful tank?
> ...


It comes down to what you can afford and what you have space for. Look in the galleries to see what you like best and go from there. In GENERAL pick a tank 3', 4' or 6' long as there are ready made lighting solutions and wider is better as it provides room for a true front, middle, back (ie 55 gal vs 60 gal). I like shallower tanks (40 breeder!) but it is tough to argue with Sn8K's deep 90!


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

Thanks BlueRam. You might say I can't afford to go to Burger King tonight, much less a big tank. But I'll figure out a way for the right tank, so let's not let cost be a limiting factor.

I'm inclined to agree on Sn8K's deep 90. All that space at the top seems to be a bit out of the norm for planted tanks, but it does seem to lend itself to a Beautiful (!) tank. That is exactly the kind of feedback I'm hoping to get. Thanks.

And how wide do you think a tank should be? Is 18" enough, or is 24" excessive?


----------



## Buck (Oct 13, 2002)

I really like the tall tanks...I miss my 56G column tank... it was 30"L x 18D x 24T... it was a managable size and cheap to setup (relatively that is...LOL) as far as tanks go. I ran 3X55w lights from AHSupply over it and it was perfect. Managed to grow some nice Glosso before the tanks demise.
I wish I had the space to set up a large tank but with the crooked floors of a house built in 1850 I just cant risk it. The 75 I have now scolley is the biggest I ever had and it allready seems too small...if you can swing it and have a place in your home that can support the weight, go for the biggest you can muster... its a no lose situation. 
But in the end it all boils down to what *you* want...all I will say is I miss the height of the 56... I think a 65 has the same dimensions only it is 36" wide instead of the 30" if you are looking for a smaller, yet still deeper tank. roud:
The 56G is in the barn with a cracked front on it, if you are handy and feel like a project you can have it and save it from going to the dump. I aint got the time or patience to fix it... LOL


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

Thanks Buck! It's a generous offer - but I've got the space for something as much as 6' wide, on the ground floor, on a slab. So provided I could sneak it past my wife :icon_lol: , I could go with a pretty big tank.

I've spent WAY too much time looking on the net, reading Amano, reviewing AGA entries, and have come to a few conclusions...

1) I think tall can be wonderful if you make good use of open space.
2) Long is good, but it can get excessive, requiring you to look side to side to take it all in.
3) Reasonable depth, front to back presents a lot more options.

But most important, I've learned to listen to the experts. So enough of what I think (for now - ultimately I know I have to decide). I'm looking for the voice of experience! So chalk one up for the 30"L x 18D x 24T!


----------



## malkore (Nov 3, 2003)

most 120g tanks are 72"x18"x22" 72" is six feet long.


----------



## eums (Sep 16, 2004)

i have had a few tanks , i like wide tank. 18' + wide (i like 24" + even better) 

a 60x24x24 would be nice or even a 60x20x20 or somehting like that. a tank with more front to back dept looks alot nicer to me + you can go crazy with aqua scape. the tank is going to be the most expensive thing. 

if your going to be doing the tank to keep for a long time, think of getting 72" long. a 72x24x24 is ~180 gal + you can light it with 3 x 150w metal halide bulbs ( one bulb covers about 24" ) with out having dark areas or use 175w halides ( cheaper bulbs )

halides would work out cheaper in the long run IE;
3x 175 bulb @ $55 each (XM bulbs) 3x ballast and reflector kits(electronic ballasts and spyder light reflectors) @ $129 each

total start up = 177.00 x3 = $513 (you get $10 off eachbulb if you get it with the retro fixture, bulbs are 10,000 K ) total wats 525 
Total: $549.80 shipped

Pc's 
9x 55w(kit = ~$295) bulbs $18 each($162) or 6x 96w (kit - $299) bulbs #32 each ($192) 

total for 55w total 495W= $457 total with shipping $495.13
total for 96w total 576w= $491 total with shipping $536.93

its something to think about or you could go with T5's they would also be close to the cost of MH if not a little higher but bulb cost would be very very cheap. and bulbs last a little longer. 

the prices are really close if you are making you own hood and wanting a retro kit , if you want a pre fab lighting hood thats another story, and prices start to get up there. if your going with a big tank go with halides, the bulb cost will be a little less but it just looks sooooo much better, the fish and plants cast shadows and you get a slight shimmer in the water.

prices came from DIYreef.com and AHsupply.com


----------



## Buck (Oct 13, 2002)

> I've spent WAY too much time looking on the net, reading Amano, reviewing AGA entries, and have come to a few conclusions...


 Ever see this site scolley ,Aquarium Design Group its got some beautiful LONG, LARGE tanks , this site has been listed in my favorites forever ! Its very inspirational, so are the homes and offices that these tanks are in... ohhh to be rich :icon_roll


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

Thanks for the good feedback folks!

Malkore - 

```
most 120g tanks are 72"x18"x22"
```
Yup - but I'm don't really want to limit this question to typical sizes, and 60”L x 18”W x 26”H is another 120 variation that seems interesting. :icon_conf 

Eums -
Great cost info. Thanks! But again, I value your opions about what looks good more...

```
a tank with more front to back dept looks alot nicer to me + you can go crazy with aqua scape
```
Buck - 
YES! I have seen that sight, and am already scouring the net for driftwood that would fit in a design that was directly inspired by one of their tanks. I'll be surprised if my final design (the intent, not the result :icon_wink ) will ge aimed at something between the more open look you see on that site and what you see from Amano.

Rich isn't in my future either, especially if I keep blowing any extra do-ray-me on aquaria!


----------



## Ibn (Nov 19, 2003)

I really like the deeper front to back dimension, and my current tank is like so(36Lx24Wx24H). Really gives you a lot of depth to plant with.

I don't think I'd go any deeper than 24" however, since I'm not a tall guy and reaching the bottom can be a problem if it were any deeper than that. If I get a larger one in the future, I would keep the WxH the same and just increase the length of it. A 180 w/the following dimensions, 72Lx24Wx24H, would be nice. Easy to deal w/lighting going either MH or PC. I would probably do MH to get that shimmering effect if it were that length. :tongue:


----------



## JohnnyB (Oct 7, 2003)

If I had the space, I would definitely do a 180 gallon tank. 72x24x24. I thought my 75G tank would be the biggest I'd ever get but i keep running into 180G tanks and they look really good. Again, that extra 6 inches really opens up the aquasscaping possibilities.

Johnny B


----------



## Urkevitz (Jan 12, 2004)

I like the AGA 120 gallon high. 48x24x24. The tank has height and depth, and can be lighted easily.


----------



## fishyboy (Nov 16, 2003)

AGA 120 high is GREAT.. i wish i would have one... either that or a 75(which i have)


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

There seem to be some themes here...


24" high (top to bottom) seems to be popular, though some would like a bit more
24" wide (front to back) is really strongly preferred

Length (left to right) is running the gamut, but most responses, whether for a 48" length, or a 72", seem to generally agree on the other two diminsions, as expressed above.

Thanks folks! Don't hold back...


----------



## BlueRam (Sep 21, 2004)

scolley:
If you were to go cost-no-object you should do the 180 with MH without a doubt. But I would start with no less than $2000 +- $500 startup for tank/stand/lights/filter heater/substrate. Keep in mind that people or companies that generally have these also employ outside staff to keep them going. 

I would like to make the radical suggestion that you shop around for something in the 55-75 gal 4' class with canopy. It looks like most of your equipment can be reused on a 4'. It is a BIG step to go from 20 to 180 gal though. If you do get the 6' tank after you have honed you skills, the 4' makes a real nice grow out/quarintine tank too...

But now you have me wanting a 180 w/MH!


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

BlueRam - your comment is SOLID. And your advise is much closer to what I'm sure I'll ultimately decide to do, because cost IS an object (at least to my wife!). And I apologize for stimulating lust here!

I'm sure I will make MAJOR compromises, with cost, upgradeability, my own skill, and more, in the final decision. But one really should have an understanding of the ideal they should be shooting for.

I've found that one of the greatest benefits of this site is the ability to sift through people's accumulated knowledge. So granted, I'm sure I'll not be able to afford what people ultimately agree is "the tank that best lends itself to a beautiful planted tank". But IMHO it's still a good question to ask for the record.

And it's what I'll be looking at as I make decisions about my inevitable compromise!

Thanks!


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

BlueRam - I should have added a bit more...

Your observation about the equipment is astute! Everything I have was acquired with the intention of moving it on to a larger tank. Granted, in most cases the existing stuff will have to be augmented with something similar, but that will provide backup/failover. For instance - if (when) I buy a second canister, I'll have to get another Hydor, maybe larger, to run off the second canister. But currently too-large heater, combined with another of the appropriate size, should create enough combined heating to do the job while neither being sufficient to overheat the tank should a thermostat fail in the wrong position. I've pretty much been through that exercise, to what extent I could, with all the equipment.

So you were right on target! Been planning on that 2nd tank for a while. Thanks.


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 5, 2003)

Now that I have my 20 gallon balanced and set up completely, I've been thinking about my future setup. I looked a lot at Amano's pictures to get an idea of what are his popular setups, and which are good for aquascaping. Its been recommended before to look for a tank with 2:1:1 ratios for best aquascaping. The 75 gallon is within that ratio and I like the lighting options available for high light. I want to try 2 x 150 W mh with supplemental PC lighting (MH are on for only 4 hours).

If you look through ADA aquajournals, Amano uses the same tank sizes over and over. 20, 50, 75, 120, and I think 180 gallons.


----------



## BlueRam (Sep 21, 2004)

If no one else will say it...
It's not the size that matters!
But perhaps it did not need to be said.

Another observation is that many of Amano's published tanks (that I have seen, mostly early) are 'underlit' by our standards. On the 4'ers often the lighting is 4X or 6X 40W NO's... 

scolley: <Sap on/>I have the big (to me) 4' 60 gal+20 gal sump which is in the living room. I like it. It is stable and I have enough clippings to sell or trade but I also have a planted 5 gal and a planted 2 gallon in addition to the Blue Ram Breeding Project Barracks and I like the diversity. I have plants I cannot grow in the big tank that become stunning jewels in the others. Cambodia and java moss grows great in the 10 gal with a 3 year old 18 W bulb! So to end this ramble there is not perfect tank size or combination that will ensure success any more than ones that are outright failures. Just work with what you have and make sure you have fun because this is a hobby after all. </Sap off>


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 5, 2003)

The ADA tanks that I have been looking at are the ones in Oliver's website,
http://www.pbase.com/plantella/day3
All of them use MH and lots of light. 

I think there are better tank sizes than others. I've been learning the hard way by trying things out. It would be nice if I had been given some information before investing in the tanks. I learned that for high light tanks 20 gallon is a good size (small tank). A ten gallon doesn't have the height to accommodate the rapid growth of stem plants. 20 gallons is also a good size because it is not time consuming and not very expensive (maintenance takes 2 hours in a Saturday morning).

Now the only thing I am worried about with going to a bigger tank is all the work. I don't want to invest all this money into a bigger tank and then find out that in 3 years its going to be sitting in my garage.


----------



## BOTIA (Dec 23, 2003)

*Best tank size?*

IMHO the a 75 or 77 4ft tank compared to most big tanks are the best.
I say this because they ar elso one of the most popular size so there is a huge range of equipment to choose from from many companies so the prices are not that much more than say for 55. Also it will fit in more places than 135 etc. Also does not need extra floor bracing most of the time. 4 ft florscent tubes are dirt cheap and plentiful. I use grolux and T5 Ho tubes ,cheap great combo.

I have 70 gallon 4ft by 18x18. It is cheap to light not at as deep so I get growth with less light but I find it a bit short for stem plants. The extra 2-3 inches would be nice.
Botia


----------



## eums (Sep 16, 2004)

i missed the part where you have a 20g now. i would upgrade to something like a 75-90 gal tank. see how you like it.

after some time with that then you should think about bigger things and see if you want to upgrade to something on that size scale. 

good luck with it all. just be glad your not hooked on a reef tank as there about 5x more expensive. (we have a 150 gal reef with close to 15grand into it in lights, chiller, tunze stuff and euro reef, ect and livestock)


----------



## Buck (Oct 13, 2002)

scolley... do deep, do wide, do tall and do it all to what you can afford... *BUT* the key is...whatever size you decide to do .... do it *RIGHT !* :wink: 
These days I am seeing fun being had in everything from coffee pots to old jacuzzi's. Size does not matter except in cost.

Here is something else to throw into the mix... not only do I like the tank tall... I really like the bowfront tanks, never owned one but the photos are awesome and the7y look nice on the floor at the LFS .

How about it bowfront owners ?* Pro's and Con's to these setups ?*


----------



## BlueRam (Sep 21, 2004)

Buck:
I have heard of people turning bowfronts around to give extra depth in the back... How cool would that be as a built in?


----------



## Buck (Oct 13, 2002)

That is becoming popular for sure... it definately would give the tank the "depth" feel but only if that space is utilized correctly. I have a hard enough time trying to plan with a square tank ! :wink:


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

There are so many GREAT responses here, I'm not even going to try to reply yet. There's a great dialogue going on here.

Buck brought up something that I was afraid to ask, what about bowfronts? Or any other shape clearly. There's been a lot of great feedback on rectangular (thanks!), so I suppose it's fair to open this up to the wider question...


_What tank lends itself best to beautiful planted tanks, regardless of shape?_


IUnknown - I will venture one bit of early feedback - 2:1:1 is indeed visually appealing, but your ADA link seems to show 3:1:1. Thoughts?


----------



## BlueRam (Sep 21, 2004)

scolley said:


> _What tank lends itself best to beautiful planted tanks, regardless of shape?_


Which tank? Ahhh... Mine? The neighbors are getting a little tired of me redoing theirs?


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

Looking at my 100gal 60" x 18" x 23", I wish it was 24" deep (which would have added quite some expense) and a little taller, maybe 26". I really like sword plants, and the 18x23 doesn't quite cut it for them larger ones.

60" long is visually nice, not overwhelming, but impressive, but it's a pain to light. 

Your question regarding which tank shape is best can not be answered... long ones, tall ones, square and bowed ones, all can be planted in a most appealing way.


----------



## Gomer (Aug 14, 2003)

on the medium large tanks, there are 2 standard sizes that really stick out for me
40 Breeder 36x18x16H
75g 48x20x18H

I really like working with a deep tank for scaping. as for hight, I really like to keep it less than 20" unless it is a long term lowish light tank. Reaching down that far even with tweezers etc gets annoying.


----------



## Opiesilver (Nov 3, 2003)

I've got 5 personal preferences on tank sizes. 40g breeder, 65 gallon, 75 gallon, 90 gallon (almost perfect planted tank size), and the 210 gallon I built for myself. They all are nicely sized and except for the monster I built lighting them was a breeze.

The only problem I have found is water movement in planted tanks. I'm redoing my 210 to have under gravel jets. I hoping that this will alleviate any potential dead spots and corners when debris and mulm can build up.


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

Oppiesliver - what diminsions are you referring to in that 90 - 48x18x24? I've got a strong personal bias toward that tank, though there seems to be a strong concensus here that more than 18" front to back is important. Not to mention the visual value of a 1:1 ratio depth to height ratio if the tank is to be viewed from the side.

And Wasserpest - I'm with you on the 60". I know it's not a 3:1:1 or a 2:1:1 ratio, but I do like it. Lighting problems and all. I've been trying to not be to leading in this dialogue, by talking about my own preferences (I'm looking for yours!), but maybe I'm just too new at this to have the passionate leanings toward a 72" that so many people clearly have. To eyes a 60" is about the top end of what can be incorporated into a home, without it being a massive design element, or require that you have a massive home (I don't) so that the huge tank doesn't overwhelm the room it's in.

But that's my own leanings. If there is a huge concensus here that 72" long is THE planted tank, then that's what I hope to learn.


----------



## Georgiadawgger (Apr 23, 2004)

Just my 2 cents...I have a 46g bowfront and do seem a bit restricted because of the sides of the tank...I wish it had more depth (as in longer...not water depth). I saw a 58g Oceanic that I think seems perfect. Its as deep as my 46g bow and has the depth dimension as the bigger tanks like the 75g.


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

*Conclusions!*

Thanks to _everyone _ :icon_bigg for your responses to the question...

What size to you think is the best medium-to-large rectangular tank for creating a beautiful planted tank?​
OK - here is my non-scientific analysis... While the answers showed a little consistency, no single size stood head-and-shoulders above the rest. Maybe that will be clear from looking at what people said about various dimensions below.


Width (front to back):18" is often not enough, even bowfront owners were looking for a bit more
Some people were happy though with their 18" wide tanks
24" is seems to be preferred, though by no means exclusively
From the responses, IMHO, any 24" preference might be based on that being the next standard option beyond 18".​

Height (top to bottom):18" seems good for lighting and ease of maintenance (reaching)
26" or more creates good visual drama
24" seems to be the most preferred height, but that was principally with the same people that also wanted 24" width​

Length (left to right)Much less consistency here, except that with a few exceptions, it was 24" 48, 60" or 72". All standard sizes.
72" got a lot of support, but I notice it was principally from people that did not have them. So was this wisdom? Or just lust?
60" seems to be a good size, except for being difficult to light
48" got a lot of support, and from people that had them too!​

Exceptions a preference around 40g breeders (a low preference)
and an appreciation of tanks taller than 24" (a height preference)​

Additional considerations:Ratios - 2:1:1 suggested as ideal
Amano clusters around 2:1:1 or 3:1:1, or ratios that have dimensions where any one of those dimensions strays by no more than 25%
Most people seem to want a tank that's bigger than their biggest now
There is a lot passion around MH lights, which can be a factor in tank size selection
While not consistent with size recommendations, there was a good bit of feedback on people's happiness with tanks that were on the smaller end of the scale of what was recommended​

Advice:Be careful not to go too deep, unless you have a really long reach.
Do it right, so it doesn't ultimately wind up in the garage.
Consider the lighting requirements carefully
Have fun!​

Preliminary Conclusions:There is a compromise to every size
If there were more experience with sizes in the 20" to 22" range, there many have been a preference for a depth other than 24"
People generally want a bigger tank than they have now
There is no consensus on best size​

Final Conclusion:
Based on the responses, I cannot come to a single size as "best" for medium-to-large planted tanks.
If I had to narrow it down, the largest preference would seem to be either a 48x24x24 (120g) or a 72x24x24 (180g). Any decision between those two would have to factor cost, weight, and maintenance.​

Thanks everyone for your feedback. If you think I've drawn any incorrect conclusions here, please say so! :icon_bigg 


As for what I'm going to do for my next tank, I know a few things...It will be at least 48" long
It will be more than 18" deep
And it will be at least 24" high.​The rest I've still got to think about!


----------



## Oqsy (Jul 3, 2004)

maybe i overlooked it, but i didn't see any mention of a perfecto 36" 65g "tub". I recently set one up for my brother, and it's an amazing tank size and shape. lots of space front to back (i'll check the other dimensions momentarily), and also quite tall. added benefit of being able to fit in spaces where a 48"+ won't go. it's cool that he has more water than I do in my 55, yet the tank looks so much more balanced (55s are a bit too short to be so long). I found the dimensions as 36x18x24. I was able to fit a really nice sized driftwood stump in this tank that wouldn't have fit in anything else up to a 90 or 120 (standard sizes), and still had plenty of room to spare for a stack of slate. With the correct lighting setup (maybe 3 x 36" ODNO +2x) this could have the makings of a monster planted tank. 

Oqsy


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

*Reality Sets In*

We'll I'm getting closer to getting a tank. Right now the primary decision is buy, have custom built, or build myself. I've got another thread covering that. But regardless of the source of the tank, I'm real close to committing to the size - 75g (48x18x20) or very close.

This was a stimulating thread to understand what sizes are preferred and why. But reality sets in...

1) I've decided to put the tank on a raised wooden floor, so I'm concerned about weight.
2) The space selected accommodates 48" width easily.
3) A lot of people indicated that more than 18" front to back would help. But the next common increment in stock stands is 24". That's a bit too large for my space. And it drastically reduces stand options, raises stand prices, and there's the weight consideration again.
4) I've opted to go for the square side view, vs. the dramatic tall view. If I go custom I'm looking at 22" high vs. 20, because with a few inches of substrate, that makes the water view from the side almost perfectly square.
5) A 90g would fit in the same footprint, but it adds weight and has an arguably increased challenge in lighting.

So before I commit, if anyone thinks any of this thinking is silly or otherwise wrong-headed, I'd sure love to know.

Thanks folks. :icon_wink


----------



## Opiesilver (Nov 3, 2003)

If you like the size then go with it. My only concern is that you want to position it so that you have it across as many floor joists as possible. That way the weight will be spread out as much as possible on the weight bearing areas of the floor.


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

Thanks Oppiesilver. It will be running perpendicular to the bracing underneath, up against the wall that the braces run out from. So it should be OK.

I should have been more clear on the topic though - I'm not really worried about a 75, in this spot. But deciding to put the tank in that spot it is a major reason why I've ditched any consideration of a much larger tank.


----------



## Opiesilver (Nov 3, 2003)

Well, if you did want to go bigger you could get a structural engineer in and have a load estimate done at that spot and see if any bracing could be added.


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

No I can't. You clearly don't know my wife!

Having structual changes made to the house to accomodate my hobby, before she gets a new kitchen... Whoa! All I can say is that I'm sure it would be at the top of a list handed to me by a divorce lawyer.


----------



## Opiesilver (Nov 3, 2003)

LOL!! My wife used to call these glass money pits. (I think she still does, but not in front of me.)


----------



## eums (Sep 16, 2004)

sounds good to me, tank size is about what i have right now and i find it nice, any bigger and cleaning it would not be fun, it would be more of a chore if it was much larger.

just go with what you like and what looks good in the space you have. make sure you happy with what your looking at before you buy !! chances are your going to be keeping it for some time.


----------



## anonapersona (Oct 19, 2002)

*Oceanic 58 gallon*

I just wanted to mention the Oceanic 58 gallon, 36"x18"x20". Easy to work into a room, lighting can be 36" triple 30 watt tubes or 96watt CF retrofitted into the standard light strip. A nice jump in size from a 20 high, but not overwhelming.


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

eums - Thanks. I read a lot of good things about people being happy with the size, on a lot of different levels.

anonapersona - But I WANT to be overwhelmed! I'm bustin' out of this 20. It's making me nuts! Gotta go for double yje width at least. On a different note, I don't know anybody that can do corollaries like you! roud:


----------



## Momotaro (Feb 21, 2003)

> the Oceanic 58 gallon


Great aquarium! I wanted one, but went for a 75G instead. I often regretted that! 58G has a great footprint. It is not too long and not too deep. Lighting would be a breeze, as Ann already mentioned, and filtering would be just as easy.

The 58G would be great with a nice big piece of wood as a centerpiece!

I wish I had some room!

Mike


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

Gosh. You ask a question - you gotta appreciate the answers. Thanks.

But you ARE bumming me out. I really want a bigger tank. Much bigger. And you guys are making a great case for going incremental. What I really want is a 180!

This is hard advice. :icon_frow


----------



## Jackfrost (Jan 8, 2005)

May I offer a 90G as a compromise ?

I have a 65 Gallon High 24H x18D x36L. The 90 (which I am about to setup if I ever get the stand / cabinet built ! :icon_frow) is the same dimension height and depth but is 48" long. 

That gives you a very nice perspective ratio (2:1), and make lighting, and glass covers a breeze. The depth 18" is great, allowing you to do some very dramatic planting.

Also the 90G wont break the bank ... completely ... :tongue: 

One more opinion ....


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

Jackfrost said:


> May I offer a 90G as a compromise ?


Thanks. I'm actually kind of thinking about a compromise on your compromise. If I go custom, or build, I was planning on a 48x18x22. That's half way between as standard 75 and a standard 90.

I kind of like that size because from the side, with a few inches of substrate, the profile of the water would be almost square.

But if I build, a 90 will definitely be out of the question. Because I'm stuck on the idea of no brace on the top if at all possible, and the glass thickness requirements on a 24" high tank would be a lot. 22's kind of the max height for 1/2" glass with no bracing, and I'm drawing the line at 1/2" glass for multiple reasons (weight and doh ray mee).

But you are right - same footprint as a 75, just taller!


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

I've been working this thread, and another on Rimless/Frameless tanks concurrently. In that one I've come to the conclusion that I should at least try to build my own tank. Lot's of reasons listed in that thread.

Bottom line is this...

I'm about ro order the low iron ($$$) glass for something in between a 75 and a 90 to be built in you typical ADA/Amano style. Same 48x18 footprint.

Thanks for all of your input to date. Give me a yell if you think I'm off balance!


----------



## Fred (Mar 19, 2005)

This has been a great thread to read. I have been thinking about getting a larger tank than what I currently have (30g) and have been having difficulty deciding on what size to get. I am undergoing similar debates as you, scolley, and reading everyone's opinions has helped me. I have a few questions......

1. Many (not all by far) had seemed to indicate a preference for a 24" front-to-back dimension and you had (I think) indicated that you were planning on something deeper than 18". But now it seems that you are going with 18" deep. I think you said that this was because of the place you were thinking about putting it not permitting something deeper. However my question is... is this the only reason for your not going with a 24" deep or have you seen other opinions about it? I like the deeper tank and it would fit in the place I have in mind, but I am a bit worried about the back being difficult to reach.

2. A tank size of 48"x24"x24" seems like a standard size, but my LFS does not seem to think so (i.e. they don't stock it)....just the usual 75 and 90 g for 4' tanks. Where and from whom is the best place to get one of these? Also, this thread indicated that it adds significant expense over the standard 75 g. Why? Where is the added cost? Tank, stand, lights or all of the above? Also, what would be the best way to light it for high light conditions (currently I have 3.7 wpg on my 30g).

Thanks again for a nice discussion.

Mike


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

Hey Mike - I thought this thread was about dead. But I'm glad someone other than me got some value out of it. I thought it was a meaningful discussion, and am still grateful to everyone that contributed! roud: 

I'm still _convinced _ that 48x24 is the way to go vs. 48x18. But the added expense comes in a number of places - tank cost, stand cost, and lighting cost. And for me, since I decided to place the tank on a raised floor, I opted for the safer, lower weight option of 48x18. But I know that this tank _is only _ the 2nd step in my journey, not the destination. So it's an easy compromise to make. Still - 48x24 seems clearly better if you can afford and accommodate the difference.

And I've been paying close attention to this since this thread, and my 48x18 decision, and am now convinced that the 24" width is far superior.

As far as where to get a 48x24 tank, you'll have to look a bit beyond your LFS. I'm not sure where exactly to tell you where to turn. But good use of Google will turn up a few sites. It's not unheard of, just a bit uncommon, and a bit more expensive.

And if you can't find one, you can build it. I'm building my 48x18, and 48x24 isn't a whole lot different. You can follow the grisly details here if you are a glutton for punishment.

Good luck in your quest. But if this does not answer your questions, please don't hesitate to post them back here! :icon_wink


----------



## Canoe2Can (Oct 31, 2004)

48 x 24 inches is the base dimensions of a standard 120 gallon. Perfecto, All-Glass, Oceanic, and I'm sure others all make this size. A 120 would be 24 inches high then, and you can also find 28 and 30 inch heights for this base (20" too I believe). If your local fish store doesn't stock them, they could probably order one for you. Or maybe some other local store can, they certainly aren't that unusual. 

I'm convinced that the 120 is one of the best sizes of large tanks out there. They are 48 inches, so there are plenty of lighting options, and the 24" width gives you plenty of room for aquascaping.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 10, 2003)

Agreed, the 48"x24"x24" 120g I think provides one of the nicest dimensions and proportions. It was a tank I considered before, but due to many other factors I had to go with a 75. Which don't get me wrong I really like, just comes in second on my list.

If you like the 120g don't forget the 50g or 58g! The 50 is 36"x18"x18", _exactly_ the same proportions of a 120g put in a more managable size. The 58g is 2" taller, and that extra two inches makes up for tanks w/ trim. My next tank if rectangular will be an Oceanic 58g or trimless 50g.


----------



## Canoe2Can (Oct 31, 2004)

Rolo said:


> If you like the 120g don't forget the 50g or 58g! The 50 is 36"x18"x18", _exactly_ the same proportions of a 120g put in a more managable size. The 58g is 2" taller, and that extra two inches makes up for tanks w/ trim. My next tank if rectangular will be an Oceanic 58g or trimless 50g.


I actually have a 50 gallon right now, and I've used it for a planted tank before, but I don't like it. It's not the proportions that attract me to the 120, it's the size. I like tall tanks. I don't think I would ever again get a tank that was less than 24 inches tall (being 6' 2" this is no problem for me). If I were to get another tank to replace the 50, it would be either a 65 or a 70 gallon to get the height.


----------



## ringram (Jan 19, 2005)

my father has a nice 125g... its at least 18" wide. would be great for aquascaping....the only problem, he isn't into planted tanks. Just a big, whoppin' community tank


----------



## beginerplanted (Jul 1, 2009)

i would have to go with 48x24x21 just because i have a lot of slow growing plats that will barely make it o the top of my tank


----------



## LS6 Tommy (May 13, 2006)

scolley said:


> ...how wide do you think a tank should be? Is 18" enough, or is 24" excessive?


I have an Oceanic 58 gal. It's L 36.5 x W 18.5 x H 21. I like a tank with front-to-back depth. It's also just a tad too short for my tastes. If it were 24" H I'd be able to gt a little more open surface for light penetration. A few of my plants grow tall enough to go across the top a bit & the extra3 inches would make a big difference. Just something to consider if you grow Vals or other tall plants but still need good penetration for foreground or groundcovers.

Tommy


----------



## Coltonorr (Mar 12, 2008)

anything over 75 gal.
having 18" of depth in the tank makes a huge difference.


----------



## FSM (Jan 13, 2009)

3 year old thread...awesome


----------



## Coltonorr (Mar 12, 2008)

FSM said:


> 3 year old thread...awesome


:hihi: I didn't even look.
Wonder what size tank scolley got?


----------



## bradac56 (Feb 18, 2008)

BlueRam said:


> scolley:
> If you were to go cost-no-object you should do the 180 with MH without a doubt.


+1 on the 180 that seems to be the magic number that lets you do anything you want aquascape wise with real logs/rocks especially if you have a pendulum light hanging over the tank.

Check out Tom Barr's 180 rimless thread on his website for ideas.

- Brad


----------

