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

[SPYDERLK]

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.

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.

I agree on your issue regarding the PEC disabling the outer eyes/balls, forcing the inner balls along with some slop on the implement pins to take up any articulation required. The QH actually presents a worse condition because it also locks up swivel on the outer eyes. With the arms thus fixed wrt one another by the QH frame the pins are spared, but you cant tilt the implement.
larry

 

[SPYDERLK]

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

[[[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.

That type would be very tempting esp if my wifes tractor had an extendable link option avail.
[[Yeah, the overlap aspect of slider and socket is insufficient to keep them from jamming when all the way out. Try keeping spray graphite dry lube on the elements and see it you can back into them some after hookup before lifting.]]
larry

 

[suncoast]

I agree on your issue regarding the PEC disabling the outer eyes/balls, forcing the inner balls along with some slop on the implement pins to take up any articulation required. The QH actually presents a worse condition because it also locks up swivel on the outer eyes. With the arms thus fixed wrt one another by the QH frame the pins are spared, but you cant tilt the implement.
larry

I am not in the need of a tilt function on my rear 3 pt. at this time. I know there are people who want to point off a ditch, etc. with a blade maybe. But if my mower is on a slope side to side, so is my tractor. When you say the QH locks up up the swivel worse, I believe that the QH holds the rear arms in a fixed, secure position with each other, not fighting to stay vertical on their own as with an individual hook. I do own and have used both. I haven't heard anyone talk of any damage due to a QH yet, but perhaps I missed it. I just believe two arms working securely together is stronger.

 

[kevinj]

Got to tell you I'm in over my head this discussion!

The Woods hitch will allow me to hook up without getting off the tractor..

If you are using a rotary cutter you will still need to get off the tractor and hook up the PTO and maybe adjust the top link.

 

[ninefinger]

Ymarianne:



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.

HF has 3 different sizes, so yes if you buy the wrong size there will be problems. My HF has been plenty tuff enough, the welds just are not as pretty but for the money difference I can live with it. Can not see it anyway, it is behind me.