Pat's Easy Change Vs Quick Hitch

[deere5105]

I now have a JD 5303, 64 HP at engine, that has straight, fixed draft link arms. Previous tractor had extendable draft links that made connecting implements very easy. In looking into ordering factory extendable draft links, the cost would be more than either the Pat's easy change or the Quick Hitch. Sometimes the implements are stored on unlevel ground further making connecting the straight link arms a pain. Standard procedure I use is connecting lower lift pins first then connecting top link. I have the following questions on comparing the two units:

1) When using the Quick Hitch, how are you dealing with the top link? It appears that the Quick Hitch makes the whole 3 PT system become one functioning unit. Are you forced to use a Hydraulic Top Link to be able to move the top of the Quick Hitch in and out to get the location right WHILE lifting the hitch? It also seems you wouldn't have much flexibility if the vertical dimensions of the implement being connected were different since this is now one fixed piece. With the Pat's Easy Change it seems you can still move and rotate the Top Link as needed to fit.

2) It seems the Quick Hitch also defines the width of an attachment connection in that each attachment has to be set to the width of the Quick Hitch. It appears the Pat's Easy Change has an adjustable bar to set or change the distance giving more flexibility.


I am not intending this to be a promotion of one or the other, just would like to get a better understanding of the basic operations of both. I have not had any hands-on experience with either of these systems.

[jenkinsph]

While the quick hitch makes it very easy to hook up implements it is necessary to make them fit once and for all. You can adjust your manual top link and in turn adjust the top hook position as you would with a standard hookup. I recommend having top n tilt hydraulics to make it all super easy to use. If you have alot of implements it makes it so much easier to change between them, most times from the tractor seat. I do have to get off to raise and lower stands or hook up the pto shafts.

Pat's system works better with a wide variety of implement widths and is adjustable. While it is easier than using the standard hitch it isn't near as easy as the quick hitch.

What I use is the telescopic links on two implements and the other 15 implements I have bought or modified for the IMatch system. My larger boxblade and the 3ph phd require me to remove the IMatch currently, I use the hydraulic auger now so the 3ph phd is for backup use only, that leaves the boxblade to modify when I get a chance.


All that said you need to assess your requirements to see which will work best in your use. If you can make everything IMatch compatible that is what I recommend. If you don't wan't to go to the trouble of fitting the oddball equipment then look into the Pat's system.

[RoyJackson]

Having had both the Pat's system and now a Deere quick hitch, the QH is a better way to go IF all of your implements are QH compatable or you're OK with modifying those that are not.
The Pat's system is more versatile and takes care of the worst part of hooking up an implement...the lower links. Using their spreader bar makes it even easier.

If you have a PTO driven implement, you still have to get off the tractor to hook up the drive shaft. BTW, either method is going to add 4" or so to the distance between the tractor's and implement's stub shafts so you may need longer driveshafts or a PTO Adapter.

When I bought my Deere QH, I thought it was gonna be the best thing since sliced bread...it's not. If I had to do it over again, I'd have probably kept the Pat's system I had on my old 790.

[deere5105]

I wouldn't mind having the Hydraulic Top Link for changes on the go, but without the quick hitch seems like it would be more back and forth trying to get the Top Link set for hook up. We have a couple of other tractors and I like the idea of being able to share implements and not sure I want to modify everything to fit the Quick Hitch. Seems that could be a limitation?

The only PTO driven implement I have it this time is a JD MX6 rotary cutter. Not sure how that would adapt to the longer "set back".

So in a nut shell, the limitations of the Quick Hitch are that some implements will not fit and it is recommended to have HTL and Top n Tilt. One of those issues too is that at this time I only have one rear SCV and control. I do not have any Hydraulic equipped attachments at this time.

Are there any limitations to the Pat's system? Sounds like it is the most universal and flexible. I assume this would allow for backing up, getting under and connecting to the bottom pins and then adjusting the Top Link to fit? I don't mind getting off to connect the top. I don't have a cab to get in and out of or any other issues preventing doing this.

Am I missing anything?

[Archer EV]

BTW, either method is going to add 4" or so to the distance between the tractor's and implement's stub shafts so you may need longer driveshafts or a PTO Adapter.

Roy,
I assume the Pat's system also means increasing the top link lengths by 4 inches. Did you find this to be the case?

[greg_g]

Roy,
I assume the Pat's system also means increasing the top link lengths by 4 inches. Did you find this to be the case?

about 4" for a Cat 2, maybe 3" for a Cat 1. But the same principle applies to the QH. I've had both, and was extremely disappointed in the QH. For a tractor that doesn't already have adjustable/extendable lower links, I highly recommend the PEC system

//greg//

[RoyJackson]

Roy,
I assume the Pat's system also means increasing the top link lengths by 4 inches. Did you find this to be the case?

The 4" on both the Pat's easy change and the QH comes from the distance from the lower link eyeballs to the hooks that connect to the implement. The top link will have to be lengthened by turning the adjusting rod.
I didn't have to, since my top link had adequate adjustment...but if you have one of the shorter top links (barrel lengths are different), you may have to purchase a longer one (which you would not have to do with a QH, BTW).Top links at TSC are about 30 bucks, IIRC.
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.

BTW, there is no need or necessity for TnT or a hydraulic top link using either Pat's system or a QH. It's strictly a convenience feature for guys who don't want to leave the tractor's seat.

[nikdfish]

In addition to Pat's, there is also the Carter & Son's EZ-Hitch. It's link attachment is done on top of the arm rather than extending off the end. It is not as automatic as Pat's as you have to insert a pin & keeper on each side after positioning the EZ Hitch up against the implement's link pins.

I bought a set a while back & consider them well worth the money. They don't have the vertical alignment screws that Pat's do, and mine tended to flop around until I drilled & tapped a set of 4 holes on each for bolts to keep them more vertical.


Nick

[jenkinsph]

BTW, there is no need or necessity for TnT or a hydraulic top link using either Pat's system or a QH. It's strictly a convenience feature for guys who don't want to leave the tractor's seat.

I pointed out in my post above you can adjust manually.
While it isn't absolutely necessary (and neither is having a tractor for most people) it does make it easier to align with an implement that isn't setting on level ground. The whole point in having either a PEC or quick hitch is tomake it easier to hookup implements. Time is money when you do this for a living.

[RoyJackson]

While it isn't absolutely necessary (and neither is having a tractor for most people) it does make it easier to align with an implement that isn't setting on level ground. The whole point in having either a PEC or quick hitch is tomake it easier to hookup implements. Time is money when you do this for a living.

No doubt about that...and if I was making my living operating a tractor or running a farm, I'd want every convenience feature I could afford...but I'm just not in that much of a hurry.