Maybe a Step 'Backwards', But Handy?

[catsco]

Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

The only attachments I have for my PT-425 are a 4-in-1 bucket, plow, and mini-hoe.

Changing them can sometimes be quite a chore due to the need to relieve pressure in the implement, and the sequence of:

1. Swap the hoses from the attachment to the QA plate.
2. Start engine.
3. Detach the current attachment, pick up the desired attachment.
4. Stop engine.
5. Relieve pressure, swap hoses again.

Does anyone know if the manual (seems to be spring-loaded) method used on the PT-180 could be fitted to the PT-425?

Since you have to start and stop the engine and get off the tractor twice to swap implements, it might be easier to manage.

If I had unpowered attachments (small bucket, etc.) the hydraulic powered disconnect would be great, but right now it only causes more work to change attachments.

I'm considering a quick disconnect "T" and two position valve to eliminate one step.

Thanks!
Mark H.

 

[catsco]

Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

The only attachments I have for my PT-425 are a 4-in-1 bucket, plow, and mini-hoe.

Changing them can sometimes be quite a chore due to the need to relieve pressure in the implement, and the sequence of:

1. Swap the hoses from the attachment to the QA plate.
2. Start engine.
3. Detach the current attachment, pick up the desired attachment.
4. Stop engine.
5. Relieve pressure, swap hoses again.

Does anyone know if the manual (seems to be spring-loaded) method used on the PT-180 could be fitted to the PT-425?

Since you have to start and stop the engine and get off the tractor twice to swap implements, it might be easier to manage.

If I had unpowered attachments (small bucket, etc.) the hydraulic powered disconnect would be great, but right now it only causes more work to change attachments.

I'm considering a quick disconnect "T" and two position valve to eliminate one step.

Thanks!
Mark H.

 

[BobRip]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

I agree with your issue. I am thinking that if you coupled the two hoses together that come from the quick attach cylinder and perhaps put a valve in that coupling you would be able to easily open and close the cylinder when the valve is open. Then you could put a handle on each end of the cylinder or on the quick attach levers (those parts which lock the quick attach plate on) and with the valve open, lock or unlock the quick attach. Once this is done you would close the valve in the coupling, locking the levers in place.

Does this make sense? The nice thing is you could still use it normally if you liked.

Bob Rip

 

[BobRip]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

I agree with your issue. I am thinking that if you coupled the two hoses together that come from the quick attach cylinder and perhaps put a valve in that coupling you would be able to easily open and close the cylinder when the valve is open. Then you could put a handle on each end of the cylinder or on the quick attach levers (those parts which lock the quick attach plate on) and with the valve open, lock or unlock the quick attach. Once this is done you would close the valve in the coupling, locking the levers in place.

Does this make sense? The nice thing is you could still use it normally if you liked.

Bob Rip

 

[KentT]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

If there was a male and female coupler on the Quick Attach, so that you could connect them, I'm not sure a valve of any type would be required -- fluid would simply flow from one side of the piston to the other.

There's a difference in displacement (i.e. volume) from one side of the cylinder to the other, but I don't think it would effect anything other than possible travel distance. I think the big difference is in pressure, not volume, due to one side of the piston having a connecting rod which means less surface area on the piston exposed...

If that is the case, all you'd need is some kind of lever mechanism to help move the cylinder.

You could add a valve between the couplers, though, that would allow you to "lock" the QA by cutting off this flow....

But, that's a hydraulic novice speaking... /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[KentT]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

If there was a male and female coupler on the Quick Attach, so that you could connect them, I'm not sure a valve of any type would be required -- fluid would simply flow from one side of the piston to the other.

There's a difference in displacement (i.e. volume) from one side of the cylinder to the other, but I don't think it would effect anything other than possible travel distance. I think the big difference is in pressure, not volume, due to one side of the piston having a connecting rod which means less surface area on the piston exposed...

If that is the case, all you'd need is some kind of lever mechanism to help move the cylinder.

You could add a valve between the couplers, though, that would allow you to "lock" the QA by cutting off this flow....

But, that's a hydraulic novice speaking... /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[Spiffy]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( You could add a valve between the couplers, though, that would allow you to "lock" the QA by cutting off this flow....
)</font>

That's my line of thinking too KentT. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Why spend time and money to take a step back, when the same effort can take you 3 steps forward. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Ideally, I'd say you want a two spool valve, with 1 cylinder spool [neutral blocked] on spring return, and 1 motor spool [neutral free] with detents, or better yet: rev, neutral, fwd, detented forward.

My 2445 had separate PTO control, but since it went in parrallel to the front and the back; I was experiencing similar frustration to you.

The motor spools have the side benefit of not causing back pressure when attaching the hydraulics, and are also useful for reversing and free wheeling attachments. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[Spiffy]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( You could add a valve between the couplers, though, that would allow you to "lock" the QA by cutting off this flow....
)</font>

That's my line of thinking too KentT. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Why spend time and money to take a step back, when the same effort can take you 3 steps forward. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Ideally, I'd say you want a two spool valve, with 1 cylinder spool [neutral blocked] on spring return, and 1 motor spool [neutral free] with detents, or better yet: rev, neutral, fwd, detented forward.

My 2445 had separate PTO control, but since it went in parrallel to the front and the back; I was experiencing similar frustration to you.

The motor spools have the side benefit of not causing back pressure when attaching the hydraulics, and are also useful for reversing and free wheeling attachments. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[RegL]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

That's the trouble with these PT's. They makes us lazy. I would suggest, before making mods to the PT, that you borrow someone's CUT and change out 3pt attachments for a day or two. After that, I think you will find that your PT is all better,lol.

 

[RegL]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

That's the trouble with these PT's. They makes us lazy. I would suggest, before making mods to the PT, that you borrow someone's CUT and change out 3pt attachments for a day or two. After that, I think you will find that your PT is all better,lol.