Pat's Easy Change Vs Quick Hitch

[greg_g]

I'm not sure why greg_g wrote, or implied, that the top link has to be adjusted for the QH...not so with the Deere brand QH I have...but I guess QH designs may differ..

I phrased it that way because JD calls their quick attach system "iMatch". It's a totally different geometry than the generic QH I owned (from Harbor Freight), which required the same toplink extension as did the PEC system that quickly replaced it.

//greg//

 

[Chugbug]

My only experience is with Pats system and I would recommend it. As stated it adds about 4" of length so be aware of that. Easiest system I've ever used and you don't need to modify any of your attachments (at least in my experience). Pats is very well made and a great company to work with.

 

[deere5105]

I guess my reason for asking if the HTL was necessary for the Quick Hitch type, is because it seems like there might be occasions where you would need to tilt the top in or out to get in the proper location to connect with the top of the 3PT. On most of my attachments I find myself adjusting the top link some one way or the other. Maybe that is where the "making all attachments I-Match compatible" comes in.

Sounds like the PEC is the least involved to make useable on different type implements. So far some have went from Quick Hitch to PEC, but have not heard any going from PEC to Quick Hitch.

 

[jenkinsph]

I guess my reason for asking if the HTL was necessary for the Quick Hitch type, is because it seems like there might be occasions where you would need to tilt the top in or out to get in the proper location to connect with the top of the 3PT. On most of my attachments I find myself adjusting the top link some one way or the other. Maybe that is where the "making all attachments I-Match compatible" comes in.

Sounds like the PEC is the least involved to make useable on different type implements. So far some have went from Quick Hitch to PEC, but have not heard any going from PEC to Quick Hitch.

Your reasoning is correct about the HTL being necessary if you want to quickly adjust for an implement that is leaning front to back one way or the other.

With three points to connect to that are fixed in place then it is much easier to do everytime in the future if all the implements are made the same. You have a choice of either fixing the implements to all fit the quickhitch or getting off the tractor with the pats and making simple adjustments each time you change implements.

 

[RoyJackson]

I guess my reason for asking if the HTL was necessary for the Quick Hitch type, is because it seems like there might be occasions where you would need to tilt the top in or out to get in the proper location to connect with the top of the 3PT.

Even though my rear finishing mower is Frontier (Deere, manufactured by Woods) and is QH (iMatch) compatable, I still have to lengthen or shorten the top link...shortening for raised transport, lengthening for more float.

Neither a QH or Pat's does everything...but after trying to hook up a rotary cutter to the lower link eyes (using brute strength, levers and a lot of cursing), one can really appreciate them. Either is better then just the lower link eyes...

 

[Redneck in training]

There is another option.
Delta Hook 3 Point Hitch - the 3 point hitch system for tractors that pays for itself
It is expensive though. If you need to change implements often and use them to make living or you are rich then it might make a sense.

 

[foggy1111]

I tried to make a Horrible Freight Quick Hitch work. After several hours and lots of aggravation I finally gave up and bought Pats. I

I first used Pats on my JD 790 and when I bought my 3320 I kept the Pats for the new tractor. Glad I kept 'em. :thumbsup:

I have quite a few 3 point implements. All brands, some old, some new. The Pats fits 'em all.....and I have not had to alter any PTO shafts on any of my implements. For me the extra few inches in length has been a non-event.

Maybe you can save a minute here and there with the JD I Match quick hitch if you take the time to alter everything or buy JD implements. But to me, once the lower links are connected via the Pats....the rest is quick and easy.

Having the factory extendable links would be nice....but to me the Pats work just fine.....and I have not had to alter anything.

Hmmmm....this is about my 6th endorsement of Pats.......Do you think I have earned the free baseball cap yet?

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Last year I added Pat's option to our 1976 60 HP Cat#2 265 MF tractor with straight arms. With our mismatch of equipment it was the way to go. On some very rough and hilly ground the hitch system has held up well with a VERY heavy 7' bush hog.

The extra 4" of space making hooking up the PTO much easier too.:thumbsup:

 

[taborekle]

I use a Land Pride (LP) cat 1 QH with my attachments, a Tractor Supply carryall, a LP blade, a rotary cutter and a LP tiller with my Kubota 2920.

For adjusting the toplink (manual for me), I position the QH lower arms below the attachment pins, then get off the tractor and spin the top link turn adjuster (turn buckle?) to fit the top link hook under the attachment top link pin. Then I can (while standing next to the tractor) just hit the lift control and scoop it up.

For most of my attachments, they share the same top link position on the QH, so if it's already set correctly, I don't have to get off the tractor, but just back up to the attachment and scoop it up.

If the attachment has a different scoop height for the top link versus run height for the top link, then I have to do the following (note that only my blade seems to be like this).

I go through the scoop as described above. Once I capture the blade, then I lower the blade to the ground to take the weight off the top link, and then adjust the top link turn buckle in. When it starts to take the weight and give resistance to turning, I lift it and set it back down and repeat. When done I can usually lift my blade a good 16 inches off the ground, giving me lots of clearance for the blade during transit.

I really like my QH. I think it's superior to the Pats system as I don't have to monitor or adjust the width of the lower lift arms. The advantage that I can see to the Pats system is if you have a auger. For that I have to remove my QH, but you could keep on the Pats system.

I have had to get my drive shaft extended on my rotary cutter as I often bush hog my dam and that requires me to back the rotary cutter off a flat road and down a steep hill, which requires a longer drive shaft. Either the Pats or the QH would have required the longer shaft, as they both extend the implement back about the same amount.

Hope that helps....

 

[KU Gator]

You mentioned in your original post that some of your implements are stored on unlevel ground. It doesn't really matter with the Pat's system. It will just grab one side quicker than the other. Even if you drop a rotary mower without putting blocks under the front, you can just pick it right up.

If you have turnbuckles for stabilizers on the arms, they are kind of a pain with the Pat's system as they let the arms collapse in more when there is no implement on there. I switched my turnbuckles out for telescopic stabilizers and can just set them to the width of my implements and just back right in and lift up. Then get off and hook up the top link.