Pat's Easy Change quick hitch: woods vs pat's

[Lindy]

SPYDERLK -- Good points, but something to add that applies in some situations...

• Due to the different geometry of the two setups Pats will lower your lift capability several % while the full frame QH will only change it about 1%. - Pats effectively extends the 3ph; the full frame QH extends the implement. Pats will lift further but will lower the lift force available.

I have a Kubota B3030 with the extendable links. I just purchased a Pat's Easy Change from Greenwell Mfg. They offer what they call a "slide-in" system for tractors like mine. With the slide-in, it doesn't extend the 3pt length at all. The hooks on PECS sit exactly where the balls do with the stock setup. So no loss in lift capability. Also -- and this was very important to me -- the pto shaft lengths stay exactly the same. No need to worry about lengthening or shortening any more than I've already done.

• Typically on both setups you lose the articulation normally provided by the outer balls and force all duty to the inner balls where the arms mount to the tractor. This is usually only a problem when you want to tilt the implement sideways.

Interesting point. Curious to see how much of an issue this will be on the B3030 with the implements I have.

A std setup with telescoping ends cant be beat when all things are considered.
larry

I can't tell you how frustrated I get with those telescoping links sometimes. If I extend them to hook up an implement, sometimes I can't get them to snap back in once there's weight on the 3pt. I actually bent some of my 3pt linkage and had to replace it when the stupid things refused to go back in. Even with the extra movement the extendible links provide, I still find myself having to horse implements around to hook them up.

I haven't had the PECS for very long, but it passed its first test with flying colors. I hooked up my 60" tiller with the PECS yesterday, and it's never gone faster or been easier.

 

[mjncad]

Reg - it wasn't the dealer's suggestion, it was mine. When I saw them hook up the brush hog, I thought how am I going to do that? Then I read all the comments here about quick hitches and started to investigate. Here's a video on Pat's that I found useful. Agdeal | farm equipment for sale, tractors, combines, used and new
Wish they had one on the woods solid piece hitch so I could see the difference.
I do have a concrete floor in my barn. I think the Woods version would be fine if I only bot Woods implements. But Pat's would be more likely to be compatible other implements, say on an old such a deal auction find.

Here is the link to the Land Pride QH manual for the hitch I have. http://www.landpride.com/ari/attach/lp/public/manuals/320-003m.pdf

The goal of any QH is to be ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engineers) specification compliant. Buying a Woods QH will not limit you to Woods products.

I use my QH with a Bush Hog rotary cutter, a Frontier (Woods) rear blade, a Deere ballast box, a FIMCO sprayer, and a King Kutter carryall. The Frontier blade was designed to be QH compatible and required no modifications on my part. My Bush Hog brand cutter was made before QH's became popular and I made a jury rigged adapter until BH got their act together to make newer models QH compatible. I bought the newer parts to retrofit mine. The Deere ballast box I have was made prior to QH's becaming popular and I made simple adapters to make it QH compatible. New Deere ballast boxes are QH compatible. The KK carryall is not QH compatible; but I made it so it would work with the QH. The same goes for the FIMCO sprayer.

The lack of an adjustable top hook is why I didn't buy the Deere QH. Having that adjustable top hook makes all the difference between having a useful tool and one that isn't.

All QH compatible implements can be used on any 3ph of the same category without a QH. I make all my adapters with the QH and non-QH compatibility in mind.

 

[Spudland_Dave]

.....The goal of any QH is to be ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engineers) specification compliant. Buying a Woods QH will not limit you to Woods products.

...The lack of an adjustable top hook is why I didn't buy the Deere QH. Having that adjustable top hook makes all the difference between having a useful tool and one that isn't.

Well, arent you contradicting yourself
If a hitch is ASAE compliant, there is no need for the toplink hook to be adjustable.
If you need to monkey around with the toplink hook position all the time, you no longer have a quick hitch, you have a "Faster then nothing" hitch.

I've got the Deere hitch (100% True to ASAE Spec) and my dad has a modified & retrofitted HF Quick Hitch that he modified to ASAE Specs and between the both of us and all our attachments, we hook on to everything we have....after tuning his HF hitch to ASAE Standard, the toplink hook has never moved.

 

[ymarianne]

Got to tell you I'm in over my head this discussion! I've read all your comments more than several times, you guys are all so handy and smart. I'm a girl with no experience in adapting, adjusting, welding, or engineering of any kind when it comes to equipment. I just wanted the easiest and most efficient quick hitch. The Woods hitch will allow me to hook up without getting off the tractor, plus the dealer can put it on for me. (I'm sure he'd also put on Pat's for me.) Now I don't mind at all getting off the tractor to hook something, but this sounded pretty easy. If I get a hitch that won't work with another implement I'll be disappointed and be right back on this discussion asking how to fix it...

 

[ninefinger]

The secret with the QH if that is the way you choose to go is to take good measurements with you when you go implement shopping. Gender has nothing to do with it, I have all of 11 months in this tractor world and before I got here there was not a lot of difference between me and a brick. The people on this site are helpful and freely share their knowledge and the search function here is one of my favorite tools. Welcome here and to the really neat world of tractors.

 

[Spudland_Dave]

The secret with the QH if that is the way you choose to go is to take good measurements with you when you go implement shopping. Gender has nothing to do with it.....

If you want to shop even faster, an old timer around me actually made a "wooden jig" out of scrap plywood and 2x4's...walks around the used equipment lots with the jig and can determine in 30 seconds if it will work. And if it DOESNT work, he has an instant sense of how much work it will be to convert to ASAE QH Specs..his "shopping jig" doubles as a modification jig when he gets home.

Realistically speaking, ALOT of newer stuff from Most mfg's comes ASAE QH ready...older stuff typically needs to be reworked in some way.

 

[mjncad]

Well, arent you contradicting yourself
If a hitch is ASAE compliant, there is no need for the toplink hook to be adjustable.
If you need to monkey around with the toplink hook position all the time, you no longer have a quick hitch, you have a "Faster then nothing" hitch.

I've got the Deere hitch (100% True to ASAE Spec) and my dad has a modified & retrofitted HF Quick Hitch that he modified to ASAE Specs and between the both of us and all our attachments, we hook on to everything we have....after tuning his HF hitch to ASAE Standard, the toplink hook has never moved.

I've just found theory to be one thing and reality another.

I'd say the LP QH is ASAE compliant; but they were smart enough to realize that no all implements are, so they added an adjustable top hook to appeal to a larger market base.

However; LP's Cat 2 QH doesn't have an adjustable top hook. Go figure.

 

[mjncad]

Ymarianne:

If you feel confused now, wait until you enter the wonderful world of hydraulics with the myriad of fittings available to vex even the most experienced of people.

As far as a QH is concerned, get what works for you. See if you can try out both types at the dealer.

If you choose to get the Woods style of QH; I'm going to suggest you avoid the cheap Harbor Freight ones because I've read so many posts on TBN of guys having to spread the thing apart using all sorts of methods (e.g. hydraulic jacks, cutting & welding) to get them to fit their implements. Maybe HF had their Chinese supplier fix that issue with newer ones; but I'm a firm believer that you get what you pay for.

 

[GaryS]

When I saw them hook up the brush hog, I thought how am I going to do that?

You should have seen me the first time I had to hook up my brush hog. I had bruises and invented a few new cuss words. My woods brush hog is really heavy. The floor of my barn is concrete too but getting the freaking arms to line up exactly with the hog was ridiculous. I used a 2x4 as a pry bar to move the hog an inch at a time until I got the right alignment.

I now have the Pat's system and would recommend it. I do think that now that I have more experience, attaching the hog w/o the Pats wouldn't be the trauma that it was when I was a novice. But with the Pats makes is so much easier.

One last thing - the customer service from the company that makes the Pats system is incredible. I had one small issue and they took care of it so quickly and w/o question. For me, that makes all the difference in the world.

 

[suncoast]

I have a QH and a set of the PEC. People here seem to be loyal to the system that they own (if they do own one). I definately prefer the QH. I did a post on how I was able to make my QH overcome the problems that I encountered and believe are universal to the majority of other owners. http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachments/146379-3-pt-quick-hitch-solution.html The PEC is a very well built system and a design that has made many people happy. I just changed the outer nuts to nylon locknuts after them continually coming loose and losing them and the allen rod set screw inserts. As you can see from the pictures, I set the arms on the EC as told in the directions and the implement is squarely on the hooks. Notice when the implement changes position, less and less of the implement pin is supported on the EC hooks. The balls are unable to swivel in the arms as the implements change position. I don't know if this should be a concern or not. I know I can set the hooks level for the raised position, but then we have the same issue when they are lowered. I just am concerned that this may put an inward torque on the 3Pt. arms that they are not designed to be subjected to. Now you can debate with each other on the physics of this, but it just doesn't look right to me. This is only what I feel and many people swear by the PEC system. It is a very good option for the folks who can't or dont want to alter their non ASME implements. But I will continue to use my QH as I don't have to even hook up the top link with it and I believe it is structurally the better option.