Danner Mag 2?

GPH @ 0 Ft / m Head: 275 GPH
Max Head: 7.0 ft
Watts: 24

There's been a fair amount of discussion and recommendation of the Mag 3 pump lately. Looking at the specs of various pumps it seems to me that the Mag 2 might be a better choice (unless you plan a fairly restrictive system). Exceeds the Eheim 1250 head rating, at 11 watts less than the Mag 3 (-$10 in price also).

Any thoughts?

Model 2 has a 250 gph capacity which drops to 125 at app 4 ft of head.
Model 3 has a 350 gph capacity which drops to 275 at app 4 ft of head.

seems like model 3 has something better in it cause you get over 2x more flow at 4ft head.

Right, and the 1250 also beats the Mag2 at 4 ft. Hmmm.... maybe the extra watts are worth it.

I agree that the Mag 2 is the best choice. The Mag 2 runs far more efficiently than the Mag 3 in our type of setups.

I love my Mag2, 3+ years and going strong (and quiet).

And pump head does not matter in a closed loop, only in a bong. Even my little VA1300 would do 12 feet height in a closed loop, at good flow. If I'd had more tubing than that, I'd have proven it further.

And WELCOME to the forums, BosHaus!

I have the mag2 an going 3yrs now without a problem, seem to be a good pump.

Got a mag2 as well.................excellent pump. I would've gotten a mag3, but it wasnt available where i bought mine.

Diggrr said:

And pump head does not matter in a closed loop, only in a bong. Even my little VA1300 would do 12 feet height in a closed loop, at good flow. If I'd had more tubing than that, I'd have proven it further.

Click to expand...

That is not exactly true, head loss refer not only to elevation but also to loss due to viscous friction and minor loss (elbow, valve, cross section contraction, etc). So head does matter.

btw, do you still use your copper tube case?? That case was awesome!! Did you made a top cover?

the mag #3 woudl be a better choice. 35watts, 350gph 10ft head max.
You want something to push more than 7ft. Theres this graph les has that if you surf for "danner" you might be able to come across it. it shows some values for different pumps and 2 watercooling systems.

I've got a Mag2 running in my system with about 35 ft of tubing. I also tried a Mag5, and although the flow was better, I saw .5C or less of a temp difference. The 2 does the job just fine and is quieter. Have not tried a Mag3 so I can't give you a head to head on those two.

Prandtl said:

That is not exactly true, head loss refer not only to elevation but also to loss due to viscous friction and minor loss (elbow, valve, cross section contraction, etc). So head does matter.

btw, do you still use your copper tube case?? That case was awesome!! Did you made a top cover?

Click to expand...

I said good flow, not full flow. I'd like to see the watercooling system that actually passes the water that a pump is "rated" at. Most, I'd suspect are 30%, and many, even less.
Out of curiosity, I've tried pumping one bucket to another through my (older) water system, and the results were abysmal, with no change in it's normal operating height or tubing lengths.
Also, along with a pump's numbers, I'd love to see the tubing sizes that the "ratings" are based upon...betcha money it's not 1/2" ID clearflex, but more like 3/4" or 1" copper. I'd also betcha that no fittings are in that test pipe, so our adding them would make any rating inapplicable.

Head does refer to pumping height in an open end pipe (far from an enclosed cooling system, but much like a bong system). Head loss (which I did not mention) is accounted for with our smaller tubing, fittings, bends, tubing collapses etc....

And yeah, still using that "case". Been working on a new one though, fiberglass this time. A new water system too.
I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to shoot ya.