Which tank? 36x18 or 48x13?

[ccd79]

I need some advises on deciding which tank to buy.

I am looking for a 55-60 gallon tank and there are 2 dimensions I can choose from in the pet shop close by. One of them is 36X18 (I forgot the height, 58 gallon) and the other one is 48X13 (55 Gallon).
The second one is longer but the width is shorter than the first one. If I want this to be a fish only (maybe some easy to keep corals later on), which tank do you suggest and why?

Thanks

 

[jwtrojan44]

I'd go with the 58 for the added front-to-back width. It will be much easier to aquascape. Those 13 inch 55"s are a mofo to do anything with. The main reason for the longer tank would be to keep fish that need a little more swimming room, like a small school of naso tangs

I'd forgo the added length for width if I could. I've got a 55, and a 56, which is 30x18x25. It was a lot easier to arrange the 56. My .02

 

[liquid]

Whenever purchasing a tank, try to maximize the front to back measurement, so I would go with the 18" front to back as opposed to the 13" front to back. Those couple of inches may not seem like much but by the time you get rock and whatnot in there the 13" front to back tank will feel "crowded". Maximizing the front to back measurement will also allow more aquascaping options. I wish I had thought about this before I had purchased my 38 gal 2.5 years ago.

Shane

 

[Jawbone]

I agree Wider is better. My tanks are 28" deep front to back. doing something simple like turning a piece of long rock around is simple in a wider tank.
I have had display tanks ( 13" and smaller) to keep fish only in and they served their purpose, The idea behind the thinner tank was to force the fish into swimming left to right right up front. But for Reef tanks it just does not work well, with some corals easily expanding past 13" in diameter you can run out of room in a hurry

JMO Have fun

 

[FishDaddy]

I agree about the deeper front to back tank. I would offer a 3rd suggestion to go for a 75. There is very little difference in price between the 55 and 75 but a world of difference in what you can do with the tank. The 4' length gives you more swimming room for a wider selection of fish as a FO and the 18" depth gives you the options for aquascaping; more sump room; and more options for lighting atop the tank.
The cost of equipping and maintaining a 75 as opposed to a 55 or 58 is very small, since you can use essentially the same equipment for either, compared to the benefits you will gain. The big increases in cost seem to come with tanks 90 gal and above.
Dick

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: FishDaddy ]</p>

 

[ccd79]

thanks for your reply. I will go check out the price of the 75 gal tank.

 

[scooterr]

yea, go with the larger. I have alot of oddly shaped tanks and the wider the better. If you decide to go with the 58 rather than the 75 Then you can (later on) light it with one halide insead of two.
My adive though is to go with the 75. You always wish you had just a little bit bigger tank (that won't change if you have a 75 though

)

 

[fishfarmer]

The 55's are actually 12" wide inside, same as a 38 only longer. I saw a 58 a few weeks ago after getting my 55. It was a nice shape, but I like the look of a long tank and believe with some planning I can aquascape it. The 75's are definatly a good shape for a reef, plenty of depth for a sandbed and good front to back depth.