Waterbox 170.4/5 or Reefer 525

[Peach02]

So ive been looking into a new tank and due to the recent Red Sea tank problems im looking more and more at the water box aquariums especially with people saying that red sea have been removing people from their facebook group for asking for support. Does anyone know if the Waterbox 170 or 130 have the same problems as the red sea tanks with the stand etc and does anyone have experience with the waterbox 170 or 130? It is also cheaper for me to get ether of the waterbox tanks

 

[mta_morrow]

I personally don’t know of a R2R member that was removed from a Facebook group.

Maybe it’s true, maybe not.

There are a lot of Red Sea tanks out there and the only real issue appears to be the 750.

Just my take on the whole thing

 

[Schweezy]

I’m a current Red Sea owner, albeit a 170. I’ve never been let down by their customer service when replacement parts were needed and general questions on functionality. They’ve also publicly announced that there is a problem with cabinet sag on certain models that is leading to catastrophic failures, which is good. Red Sea still makes a quality product and it seems, in a lot of cases, that they stand by it. I don’t know what they’ve done on their Facebook page so I can’t comment on that. I would say that both appear to be quality products and from my experience, I’ve enjoyed being a Red Sea owner.

 

[MW319]

I’m currently a WB 170 owner and I couldn’t be more happy with my purchase except I wish I would have gone with the WB 190. Nothing wrong with the 170, I just have tank envy and wish I would have gone larger. I was interested in purchasing a Red Sea until I was able to compare both at my LFS. I would never say there is anything wrong with red sea, I just thought the WB had a better quality stand, larger sump and better quality plumbing.

congrats on whatever decision you make.

 

[lpsouth1978]

I decided on Waterbox because I preferred their stand and dual return nozzles. I truly dislike the single return nozzle on the RS that needs a special adapter to fit lockline, while waterbox uses standard lockline for theirs. All in all, I love my Waterbox!

 

[Peach02]

I’m currently a WB 170 owner and I couldn’t be more happy with my purchase except I wish I would have gone with the WB 190. Nothing wrong with the 170, I just have tank envy and wish I would have gone larger. I was interested in purchasing a Red Sea until I was able to compare both at my LFS. I would never say there is anything wrong with red sea, I just thought the WB had a better quality stand, larger sump and better quality plumbing.

congrats on whatever decision you make.

What did you notice between the stands?

 

[MW319]

What did you notice between the stands?

The plywood appeared to be of a heavier gage and it was very noticeable with the doors.

 

[Peach02]

The plywood appeared to be of a heavier gage and it was very noticeable with the doors.

Do you have any complains with your 170?

 

[Peach02]

I decided on Waterbox because I preferred their stand and dual return nozzles. I truly dislike the single return nozzle on the RS that needs a special adapter to fit lockline, while waterbox uses standard lockline for theirs. All in all, I love my Waterbox!

What waterbox do you have?

 

[MW319]

Do you have any complains with your 170?

Luckily I’m happy to say I can’t think of one single thing.

 

[lpsouth1978]

What waterbox do you have?

I have the 230.6. This is where my preference of the Waterbox stand may not apply to you. I like that the waterbox has 3 compartments in their stand, where the RS 750XXL only has 2 (this is especially true in light of the recent issues with the 750XXL), I do not know that the smaller systems have the same set up. I also liked the layout of the sump better and that the 230.6 had a separate ATO reservoir (which it appears they have done away with).

I vcan honestly say that there is nothing i dislike about my waterbox tank.

 

[Peach02]

I have the 230.6. This is where my preference of the Waterbox stand may not apply to you. I like that the waterbox has 3 compartments in their stand, where the RS 750XXL only has 2 (this is especially true in light of the recent issues with the 750XXL), I do not know that the smaller systems have the same set up. I also liked the layout of the sump better and that the 230.6 had a separate ATO reservoir (which it appears they have done away with).

I vcan honestly say that there is nothing i dislike about my waterbox tank.

Sounds good, I’ve only seen tanks with two compartments what’s the third for?

 

[lpsouth1978]

The 230.6 is 72 inches so a lot more space to work with. The section on the left is used (by me anyway) for all of the electronics, controllers, power supplies, etc. The middle section is the sump compartment. And the right section is for the ATO reservoir. The 230.6 came with a separate 18g glass tank for the ATO.

 

[aquaticlog]

Here's my $0.02

 

[KingReef]

I just installed a new Waterbox 170 and I love it. I have no experience with Red Sea, so I will not try to compare. I'll just tell you that the waterbox is top notch. The cabinet has two compartments, one for electrics and one for the sump. My only complaint is that I got the wrong cabinet the first time around. Waterbox support was super helpful and they sent a new one ASAP. I can't say enough good about their support. Also, I found this out the hard way, the tank weighs over 400 pounds. Buy suction grips and enlist plenty of help to move that sucker!