EuroReef Skimmer upgrade question, Potential new skimmer

[Taqpol]

I hope Luke doesn't mind me quoting him on here, but he gave me a LOT of good information about the SWC skimmers and what he thinks is appropriate for my 220g high bioload sps tank:

Hi Alex and thanks for the email. For a 220g tank + sump i would go with a 250a myself. Reason being it is PLENTY for a 220g tank and you don't need to spend the extra money on a cone skimmer that won't yield you any better results. Comparing two sicce's vs one askoll really isn't fair either. An askoll pump will pull the same air pull as three sicce pumps but it will be much quieter and you don't need to worry about startup issues, directional issues or noise. The askoll is the best pump on the market hands down. For your size I would definately go with an askoll. If your tank is stocked moderately to heavy you will have plenty of a bioload for the 250a to skim well. I have ran them on heavily stocked 125g tank's and they always have a foam head fwiw. Just let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks,

Luke

Hi Alex, i wouldn't worry about the 250a not being enough skimmer. I would feel more than confident with the 250a on a high bioload 400g tank. They are super powerful skimmers. You have high hopes, already talking of an upgrade! And your right, who knows what will be going on in 6 years. Yes the cone's do perform better because of the smoother transition and less turbulence. The askoll cone pulls 70-75scfh of air at 70w where as the 250a pulls 85-90scfh at 75ish watts. Personally you don't need the cone but it would work well on that tank as well. It would just run you more money which i would suggest using towards coral : ) Just let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,

Luke

 

[Taqpol]

I've heard really good things about the SWC's, I have a CNC 300A which is really more of a hybrid skimmer that Luke built (has an extended neck,etc). The Askoll pump is amazing, when it was breaking in even the tea colored skimmate from the skimmer smells worse than the dark goo that my old Euro-reef pulled. I haven't been home to see the nasty stuff it's pulling off now but based on the light stuff, I'm kind of afraid to remove the collection cup :badgrin:

I would go with the SWC 300A if you can, the larger body is a little less finicky with the Askoll pump, or the cone. I was also starting to look into the Super Reef Octopus XP-5000 cone for my dad's 255 gallon, seemed to be getting good feedback and I really like the idea of the external models once I build out a fish room on my own setup. I am a huge fan of the Askoll but have heard good things about the bubble blaster and the SRO seems to be a good deal as well (plus I'm a fan of it having a gate valve vs. the "twisty tube" style adjustment)

I don't think you can really over skim the tank, I know there are arguments otherwise, but I think the bigger issue is if you get too big of a skimmer it won't maintain a consistent foam head/it surges up and down. My RS-100 did it when I had it on my 29g but when it was on my 150g it was extremely consistent, and now my Askoll based skimmer has a hard time maintaining a consistent level.

Yeah, the 300A seems like a great skimmer, but after what Luke said I think I might be afraid of it not maintaining a foam head on my tank. Plus, the two inches bigger would make it so I would have to redesign my sump.

 

[jrgilles]

Glad you gave luke a call before ordering. I was very happy with the assistance he gave me. He knows a lot about the SWC skimmers. You going to go with the 250a?

 

[Taqpol]

I'm trying to decided between the 250A and the Askoll cone. He's right though, the Askoll cone costs $300 more and draws less air (for slightly less watts, though) then the 250A.

The Askoll cone has a smaller footprint, but what does it really give me thats better then the cylinder?

 

[jrgilles]

does the 250a still fit in your sump without redoing baffles?

On my tank I went with the 160 cone, which had a perfect footprint. But, my tank is smaller and the 160 only cost $250 or so. A balance of power, price and footprint were major considerations when I got mine.

 

[Taqpol]

The sump is not even built yet, but I do have a design that I like a lot. In it I have an 18"x18" skimmer compartment that will fit either the 18"x15" Askoll cone footprint or the 17"x10.5" 250A footprint. Wait......

The cone has a larger footprint then the cylinder?? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.

 

[MrGone]

I'm trying to decided between the 250A and the Askoll cone. He's right though, the Askoll cone costs $300 more and draws less air (for slightly less watts, though) then the 250A.

The Askoll cone has a smaller footprint, but what does it really give me thats better then the cylinder?

At $300 I'd stick with the 250A, Cones are still fairly new/haven't saturated the market yet, I'm sure in a couple years cones will be much cheaper and will have more options. I would use the 250A for a couple years/however long and use the $300 for rock/corals to fill the bigger tank or save it and use it towards whatever the 'new hotness' skimmer is out in a couple years when you need it. I think the 250A will be more than enough for what you need now and in the future, it fits, etc.

I believe the cone foot print is "wider" either because of the recirc tube or because IIRC the base itself is 14"? I'm not completely certain because I've never seen/bought the cone but it was something noticed when I was looking into when I was exploring options for another tank.