Quick Hitches Quick Hitch versus extendable 3pt arms Demo Video

[ovrszd]

The QH is definately faster. The 3240 not only had telescopic lift arms but it has the telescopic stabilizers. If you would have had non extendable lift arms and turnbuckles for stabilizers it would have taken longer. I think the larger the tractor and implement the more of a time saver a QH is.

I don't know why more people don't use a QH.

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't want to be without QH on a CAT II tractor. You can kick, hit, nudge all you want on CAT II equipment, it just don't move. Even handling the weight of the 3pt arms is difficult.

 

[ovrszd]

My ballast barrel not built to spec, the grader blade has an obstruction, and the rotary cutter has the flip up piece of metal to allow it to float up. So I don't believe anything I own is compatible. Not that some work couldn't make it happen.

Yep, you'll have that. My JD cutter is specifically built to use a Quick Hitch. The Rhino is not, although one could be used on it as well. Every 3pt piece of equipment I or my Brother own is QH compatible. If not when it was purchased, after it was modified. I use my 3pt a lot, rarely get thru a day of tractor use without hooking/unhooking something.

The time a QH saves me is not nearly as important as the aggravation it saves me. Additionally, I've got tip/tilt. I can hookup to any compatible attachment, regardless of how it's sitting, with minimal aggravation.

 

[k0ua]

The time a QH saves me is not nearly as important as the aggravation it saves me. Additionally, I've got tip/tilt. I can hookup to any compatible attachment, regardless of how it's sitting, with minimal aggravation.

I believe that is the key right there, they go together like "milk and cookies"

 

[ovrszd]

You should swap your quickhitch and his telescoping arms on those two tractors, and shoot another pair of videos exactly the same, with him doing the changes.

You have enough room between your quickhitch and tire to step through between them to connect the PTO, that's not always the case on a smaller tractor. Having to hug the quickhitch every time you need to get to the PTO stub quickly wears on the love. Quickhitch also isn't as quick without the hydraulic top link to help line things up so all three points hit together.

Oh, you don't want to see a video of a CAT II tractor hooking to an attachment without a QH. You'll just hafta trust me on that one. It's not pretty.

My previous tractor was a CAT I L4400. I started using it with PAT'S, which was a huge help. But finally switched it to QH, which was another huge help. I never noticed the QH being in the way of the PTO hookup. If you think about it, the attachment is moved rearward with the QH and there's virtually the same amount of room between the QH and tractor as there is between the attachment and non QH tractor.

As for the hydraulic top link. It is a great time saver when switching attachments or picking up something not sitting on blocks. In the videos both systems had the same advantage as I had just sat the attachment down and unhooked. The non QH tractor's toplink had to be changed to hook back up because of having the extendable arms unlatched. Had I hooked the 3pt arms, gotten back on the tractor, backed up until they latched, gotten back off the tractor and then hooked the top link, that adjustment wouldn't have been necessary. But then that's not what would have been done under normal conditions either.

 

[ovrszd]

I believe that is the key right there, they go together like "milk and cookies"

Or as Forrest would say, "peas and carrots".

 

[drjay9051]

I have a Kioti DK40 with extendable lift arms and rear lever for lift arms. Even so I find that I do have to kick the arms to attach my box blade. My concern about the quick hitch is what if your implements have lift pins of different spacing or is there an industry standard? Also i still need to hook up the toplink so I'm not sure the quick hitch saves me time althoughI would not need to coax the side links with my boot.

I'll have to measure the width on my box blade, flail, rake etcto see if they are all the same. If not I'll save the $100 and stick with extendable arms

 

[ovrszd]

I have a Kioti DK40 with extendable lift arms and rear lever for lift arms. Even so I find that I do have to kick the arms to attach my box blade. My concern about the quick hitch is what if your implements have lift pins of different spacing or is there an industry standard? Also i still need to hook up the toplink so I'm not sure the quick hitch saves me time althoughI would not need to coax the side links with my boot.

I'll have to measure the width on my box blade, flail, rake etcto see if they are all the same. If not I'll save the $100 and stick with extendable arms

There's generally a standard for CAT I versus CAT II pin spacing. Sometimes you'll find structural interference with an attachment but then can usually be modified and overcome.

If you look closely at the Quick Hitch video, when it captures the bottom pins, it also captures the top link pin. The only reason I had to exit the tractor was to hook the PTO shaft and latch the lower pins to the QH. My QH has spring loaded latches on the bottom pins so I can actually latch the QH before boarding the tractor and hook to a non PTO attachment and use it without ever leaving the seat of the tractor.

I'm certainly not trying to talk anyone into a QH. It's a matter of frequency of use to me. I can't be without it. My Brother normally has a QH on his CAT I tractor. I removed it to shoot this video. As I said earlier, the primary advantage to me is aggravation, not time. I still marvel every time I hook my 10K lb tractor to my 2K lb brush cutter so easily. I drive away with a big smile on my face every time.

 

[BGigHarbor]

I am currently struggling over whether to buy a qh. I would want a cat II qh, but the main problem I am facing is some implements are too narrow for the cat II qh. For example I think the Wallenstein bx62s pins are too close together. Seems like pins that are long enough for a cat II qh spacing (inside around 32.5) would be subject to damage.

And even some LP implements cite cat I or II (with bushings) but only cat I qh like the rcf2772 I was thinking of buying. And my $4k hrl3578 is not listed as qh compatible at all. (although an upper adapter may solve that.)

Even with my grand L style telescoping arms and pinned swaybars, implements like my hrl3578 are pretty fiddly and I do lust after an easier way.

And the addition of implements has just begun.

I am trying to think about the issues (esp the cat II qh issues) now in case it affects which implements I buy.

 

[k0ua]

I should have made a video of my B7500 without telescoping links and those goofy little turnbuckles for stabilizers. Hooking up the rotary cutter was a real "joy", especially on sloping ground. It would have had to been without audio though, as even I learned some new curse words messing with that thing.

 

[ovrszd]

I am currently struggling over whether to buy a qh. I would want a cat II qh, but the main problem I am facing is some implements are too narrow for the cat II qh. For example I think the Wallenstein bx62s pins are too close together. Seems like pins that are long enough for a cat II qh spacing (inside around 32.5) would be subject to damage.

And even some LP implements cite cat I or II (with bushings) but only cat I qh.

Even with my grand L style telescoping arms and pinned swaybars, implements like my hrl3578 are pretty fiddly and I do lust after an easier way.

And the addition of implements has just begun.

I am trying to think about the issues (esp the cat II qh issues) now in case it affects which implements I buy.

Yep, I feel your pain. I think it still comes down to frequency of use. If you are talking about hooking to an attachment a couple times a week, it would be hard to justify the modifications and expense. If you are talking about hooking to an attachment a couple times a day, the justification changes dramatically.