SRO 2000INT vs XP2000I

[MammothReefer]

I did a quick search and had no luck. Basically with some of the black friday sales going on. I'm looking at either the SRO 2000INT or XP2000I the price difference works out to 39$ more for the full cone? Is it worth it? When I got out of the hobby cones were just being introduced so I've missed about 2-3 years of skimmer changes. Is there really an advantage to a cone design?

[es1887]

from what i have read the cones are supposed to cut down considerably on the turbulence in the chamber. is the cone the space saver design. if not i would go with the cone, if they come with the same bubble blaster pump.

[MammothReefer]

same pump, not the spacer saver.

[rsaha]

I just switched from an XP2000 to a bubble king mini 180. It hasn't been long enough for me to decide which pulls more gunk but for sure the turbulence in the bk is way higher than my SRO cone. With the cone you can get smooth microbubbles with no turbulence running up the cone and into the neck.

Bubbles are finer on the bk but there is alot of turbulence. Note that if you have a quiet setup the bubble blasters do hum noticeably and it is low frequency so the hum carries a long way. The SRO did impress me with how well it performed. In the end it was the hum that made me want to switch - I have a pretty quiet setup. If noise is not an issue, then I would recommend the XP2000 in a heart beat. It pulls some serious gunk.

[es1887]

i would go with the cone. for only 39 more dollars it is worth it. i have the sro 5000 and it is one hell of a skimmer. the sro skimmer is kinda a cone, but not quite. go with the cone.

[SWINGRRRR]

I have the XP-2000 on a 135 and really like it.

[es1887]

yeah, i have the sro 5000 on a 150, i guess its a little over kill.

[sasharotty]

yeah, i have the sro 5000 on a 150, i guess its a little over kill.

Internal or external?

[es1887]

not tryin to jack the thread, but int