# Eheim filter flow ratings?



## greenbliss (3 May 2021)

Does Eheim generally overstate their filter ratings? If so by how much? Or even if they do, does it truly matter? Maybe I should just go by the "10x rule" and not worry? 

I am wanting to upgrade my current filter (Eheim ecco pro) to get a bit more water flow to improve plant health but don't really know if the filter I'm planning to get would provide enough flow. My current plan is to get something along the lines of a new Eheim Experience 350 or maybe a second hand Eheim with a similar turnover rate. I am trying to not spend  too much money.


----------



## Hufsa (3 May 2021)

All manufacturers overstate but Eheim less so in my experience. My Eheim rated at 1050 lph is almost as strong as my Aquael rated at 2000. Go by the 10x rule, its made with the general tendency to overstate already factored in. You could knock off a few for Eheims if you want


----------



## ceg4048 (4 May 2021)

greenbliss said:


> Does Eheim generally overstate their filter ratings?


Yes, just like all the manufacturers.


greenbliss said:


> If so by how much?


By about 50%


greenbliss said:


> Or even if they do, does it truly matter?


Yes, of course it matters. How would you feel if your bank statement said you had twice as much money as you actually had?


greenbliss said:


> Maybe I should just go by the "10x rule" and not worry?


Yes, exactly. This is precisely why we invented the 10X rule.

Cheers,


----------



## erwin123 (4 May 2021)

greenbliss said:


> Does Eheim generally overstate their filter ratings? If so by how much? Or even if they do, does it truly matter? Maybe I should just go by the "10x rule" and not worry?
> 
> I am wanting to upgrade my current filter (Eheim ecco pro) to get a bit more water flow to improve plant health but don't really know if the filter I'm planning to get would provide enough flow. My current plan is to get something along the lines of a new Eheim Experience 350 or maybe a second hand Eheim with a similar turnover rate. I am trying to not spend  too much money.



just to share that I recently 'upgraded' my Ecco Pro 300 (rated 700l) to a Fluval 307 (1050/l).  I would say that the 307 provided 30%-50% more flow than my 7yr old Ecco Pro (whatever the actual flow, so to that extent, Eheim and Fluval flow ratings seem comparable) and a much larger pre-filter (the Ecco Pro has that tiny sponge ring)... and for me, the Fluval costs less than the Eheim. Of course Eheim longevity is legendary and my Ecco pro was like running for 7 years 24/7 without a hitch (though flow is probably a little bit less than it was new).


----------



## Aqua sobriquet (4 May 2021)

As I understand it the quoted throughput is under ideal test conditions with no media in the filter. Obviously manufacturers can’t predict what media you’re going to use or the location of the filter and hose lengths etc. If you actually run a clean filter without media you’ll find the figures suggested by the manufacturers not far off, at least that’s what I found with one of my Eheim’s many years ago. Obviously filter flow drops as it gets dirty as well. To suggest any particular figure for any filter is pointless as it’s likely to be inaccurate.


----------



## greenbliss (5 May 2021)

Cheers everyone  for the advice and for helping to clarify. I'll soon pick up an Eheim filter (purely because they are extremely reliable) following the 10x turnover rule.


----------



## ceg4048 (5 May 2021)

Aqua sobriquet said:


> As I understand it the quoted throughput is under ideal test conditions with no media in the filter. Obviously manufacturers can’t predict what media you’re going to use or the location of the filter and hose lengths etc. If you actually run a clean filter without media you’ll find the figures suggested by the manufacturers not far off, at least that’s what I found with one of my Eheim’s many years ago. Obviously filter flow drops as it gets dirty as well. To suggest any particular figure for any filter is pointless as it’s likely to be inaccurate.


Hello,
         I'll have to disagree, firstly, because the manufacturers do not explicitly state the conditions under which the pump is rated - and we're essentially talking about a pump in a bucket here. If you review the data provided by the better pump manufacturers, you'll see that they actually provide charts plotting head pressure in vertical distance to the water's surface versus pump output. It doesn't really matter that pump or filter performance decreases with wear and debris. Everyone understands that. Marketing departments are deliberately "pumping up" their products' statistics to gain advantage. I'm pretty certain that at some point in the products development it is filled with typical variety of filter media and are tested. No one uses an empty filter, so it's pointless to provide that kind of useless data in the documentation. These data are absolutely available and are simply not released.

Cheers,


----------



## sparkyweasel (6 May 2021)

Some filters, including most internal ones, are supplied with media. In my experience they still don't manage the flow claimed on the box, even if you take the media out. And with an internal you can take the head out of the equation. And pipe lengths and bends.
I've got some very good filters that I'm really happy with. Nothing wrong with the product at all, but they don't live up to the marketing.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet (6 May 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Hello,
> I'll have to disagree, firstly, because the manufacturers do not explicitly state the conditions under which the pump is rated - and we're essentially talking about a pump in a bucket here. If you review the data provided by the better pump manufacturers, you'll see that they actually provide charts plotting head pressure in vertical distance to the water's surface versus pump output. It doesn't really matter that pump or filter performance decreases with wear and debris. Everyone understands that. Marketing departments are deliberately "pumping up" their products' statistics to gain advantage. I'm pretty certain that at some point in the products development it is filled with typical variety of filter media and are tested. No one uses an empty filter, so it's pointless to provide that kind of useless data in the documentation. These data are absolutely available and are simply not released.
> 
> Cheers,


I disagree. If you check the manual, EHeim and most other manufacturers state the pump output, the maximum head and recommended aquarium size. If you find this information useless I suggest you’re in the minority. It’s almost certainly a helpful starting point for most buyers. What is pointless is guessing at a figure of 50% when you have no idea how folks are going to use them. I don’t think you should run a filter empty by the way unless you’re only using it for flow then just a power head would be cheaper for you.


----------



## ceg4048 (7 May 2021)

Aqua sobriquet said:


> I disagree. If you check the manual, EHeim and most other manufacturers state the pump output, the maximum head and recommended aquarium size. If you find this information useless I suggest you’re in the minority. It’s almost certainly a helpful starting point for most buyers. What is pointless is guessing at a figure of 50% when you have no idea how folks are going to use them. I don’t think you should run a filter empty by the way unless you’re only using it for flow then just a power head would be cheaper for you.


Stating the pump output and max head does not help us determine the performance under load.
I think you might be confused as to the figure of 50%. We've actually measured the filter performance. This isn't guesswork, and I hardly think I'm in the minority of users who need the information. Have you actually measured your filter performance under real life conditions? I guess not, because you would certainly not have determined that the figure is a guess.
Certainly, fish-only hobbyists may not care that they are experiencing a 50% loss, but we do. I suppose you're right that plant hobbyists are in the minority.
Also, I guess you didn't read my post because I stated that "...No one uses an empty filter..." and the implication was that there is no point providing us data for an empty filter and without head pressure.
I am a cheapskate, true, but replacing plants that disintegrate is more expensive in some cases than buying the right size filter the first time. But the point of all this is to explain why there is the 10x rule, that straight at the beginning we have lost 50% of our filter performance and that we need to be aware of that fact since the filter manufacturers will not reveal the true performance of their filter.

Cheers,


----------



## ian_m (10 May 2021)

JBL actually specify their cannister filter rates WITH practical usable lengths of hose and filter filled with their media.






Also state that the pump rate, as "on the box", is in fact for the pump running with no hoses of media.


----------



## Courtneybst (10 May 2021)

ian_m said:


> JBL actually specify their cannister filter rates WITH practical usable lengths of hose and filter filled with their media.
> 
> View attachment 168578
> 
> ...


JBL leading by example


----------



## ian_m (10 May 2021)

Most reputable filter manufacturers show some form of "actual rate", but some do stretch it a bit, like FX5 below. Why on earth would you be interested in "filter circulation" with no filtration media ????


----------



## hypnogogia (10 May 2021)

Probably because measuring with media introduces too many variables - what type of media and how tightly packed.  If they quoted a figure, and people didn't achieve that at home they might get complaints.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet (10 May 2021)

hypnogogia said:


> Probably because measuring with media introduces too many variables - what type of media and how tightly packed.  If they quoted a figure, and people didn't achieve that at home they might get complaints.


That’s what I said earlier.  Canister filters like the Eheim Classic have been around for decades and the information provided by the manufacturers doesn’t seem to have put people off buying them over the past 30 or 40 years! The classic must be the longest selling canister out there and they’re still selling them.
As a point of interest I did check the output of my first Eheim canister about 35 years ago, I think I mentioned this earlier. It’s of little interest in the end though, either it does the job or it doesn’t. It did so I was happy with it.


----------



## greenbliss (18 May 2021)

Today my long awaited Eheim 2217 came. The flow is definitely a lot better now. I could easily say it is 4x better as pretty much all of the plants gently sway in the flow now compared to only a handful before. I'm quite surprised as my Eheim Ecco Pro 130  that I had previously had a flow rating of only around half that of the 2217. Either way it's a nice change that I hope will improve the plant health.


----------



## greenbliss (12 Jun 2021)

Small update. After running this filter for a few weeks with the spray bar configuration it seems to me like the BBA has completely stopped spreading. I did however get a small bloom of staghorn but it's not really actively spreading and using glutaraldehyde to control it is seemingly working just fine. Overall having more flow definitely helped my tank a lot and the plants are growing a lot faster and are healthier.


----------



## erwin123 (1 Jul 2021)

Tanktastic has done a comparison of Fluval v Oase v Eheim flowrates.


----------

