Question for "Quick Hitch" Users

[PhysAssist]

I used a JD Imatch, not the latest one, fixed top hook.

ITS AWESOME. Fix all your stuff to work with it, and forget it.

Benefits for me:
1. My back, safety - I don't have anyone to help me.
2. Time - I work a full time job and then some, the time saved for me doing the job instead of getting ready to do the job means actually being able to get it done before midnight.
3. Move stuff easy - I'll have stuff lined up sometimes, I can grab an implement and move it out of the way in order to get to something else easily.

Hope this helps. With a conventional quick hitch and hydraulic top link I can most times not get out of the seat to change implements.

Ditto all the things he said, but in my case for the Harbor Freight QH, but I don't have or need the hydraulic top link.
Thomas

 

[PhysAssist]

I will be different.

I recommend pin-adjustable rigid stabilizers. I bought mine from Stabilworks.

You pin the lower links open to the width of your draw pins, back up, un-pin one side, and push the lower link eyes over the draw pins.

Requires no additional paraphernalia on your implements, and you preserve leveling function of the eyes.

PTO shaft extensions not required. Proprietary lynch pins not required.

Reinforces lower links on rare occasions when you may wish to PUSH with the tractor in reverse.

You do have to get down off the tractor......

I am 66 and have the same wear-and-tear body issues.

Kubota tractor stabilizers Kubota [url]www.stabilworks.com - YouTube[/url]

Hi,

I can't argue with Jeff, I might have gone with the stabilworks stabilizers, if I hadn't bought a HF QH first thing after my first time removing and reattaching my temporarily, though heavily filled ballast box, and having difficulty with all aspects of it from using the turnbuckles to spread and re-tighten the lower links to leveling it to get holes in the link ends to line up....

After just one cycle of that I already KNEW I did not want to have to keep doing that every time I changed implements.

Even though I had to relocate the pins on my ballast box, it was entirely worth it, because now I back up lift the 3-point and drive away.

I did buy a mirror to help with backing up, but I'm really thinking seriously about making implement dollies out of pallets by adding casters, so it's just that much easier yet.

If, and it's a big if, I had to have an implement that wasn't QH compatible, and I couldn't adapt it to fit, I would probably dismount the QH, and get a pair of the stabilizers from stabilworks ahead of any other option.

YMMV,
Thomas

 

[PhysAssist]

I agree. I built my hydraulics and saved quite a bit of money. My CAT II Quick Hitch belonged to my Brother and he gave it to me. So I got in pretty cheap. If you are adding top&tilt, definitely spring for the Quick Hitch. Then you gotta modify attachments. I'm handy in a shop so that was minimal cost and gave me some good Winter projects.

You can buy a good CAT I Quick Hitch for around $150. You can buy a good CAT II Quick Hitch for around $250. You'll hear all kinds of bargain comments about getting one a lot cheaper from wherever. But when buying something like this I'd want quality before price.

I regularly switch between a Box Blade, Angle Blade, Weight Box and Brush Cutter. I'll never go back to pinning on attachments.

We had a quality show down for the various QH'S a few threads back with pretty much the same results as always when a group of people compare things they have strong feelings (vs. actual data and facts) about on TBN, we had to agree to disagree.

The one thing I have yet to see referenced on TBN is any factual case where personal injury, tractor damage, or implement damage (in usual order of importance) occurred as a result of failure of a cheap (read HF) QH.

Thomas

 

[PhysAssist]

Took me several years to get to this point so I'd say patience is a virtue.

Had a guy tell me I should build a hydraulic latch system on the Quick Hitch so I don't have to get off the tractor. Told him I'm already lazy so don't need any help in that area.... Thanks for the compliments.

That IS a beautiful set of demo photos for the QH Aand TnT!
Thomas

 

[ovrszd]

That IS a beautiful set of demo photos for the QH Aand TnT!
Thomas

Thank you Thomas.

As to the comments about quality versus price. I have no knowledge of a HF or any other brand of QH failing. To me the quality differences are more about latch operation, precise width of lower hooks, strength of material used, etc. I use the snot out of my QH so don't mind paying a little more if I'm gaining quality in any of the issues listed above.

I have a CAT I QH that I ordered from a mailorder firm, can't remember for sure which one, might have been Northern Tool. I bent it at the bottom, near the lower hooks. The flat material used to fasten the hooks to the frame bent, moving both hooks to the right about 1/4". I have no idea how I bent it.

 

[SPYDERLK]

That IS a beautiful set of demo photos for the QH Aand TnT!
Thomas

Thank you Thomas.

As to the comments about quality versus price. I have no knowledge of a HF or any other brand of QH failing. To me the quality differences are more about latch operation, precise width of lower hooks, strength of material used, etc. I use the snot out of my QH so don't mind paying a little more if I'm gaining quality in any of the issues listed above.

I have a CAT I QH that I ordered from a mailorder firm, can't remember for sure which one, might have been Northern Tool. I bent it at the bottom, near the lower hooks. The flat material used to fasten the hooks to the frame bent, moving both hooks to the right about 1/4". I have no idea how I bent it.

The problem with some QHs - the HF in my experience, is that the receptacles for the lift arms are too narrow and restrict swivel in the ball ends. This causes binding in tilt or when trying to bias the the 3pth to pull off center. All QHs, even the good ones extend the implement 4" further back, giving it more leverage on the tractor. Usually this is a negative to some degree.
larry

 

[Kenneth in Texas]

Lot of good reading.

NOW if i purchase the cheapest quick hitch that TS has will my life be much easier changing attachments? Now i dont mind getting on and off the tracter a few times but doing it 34 times trying to hook one up sucks, or if my wife helps it usually ends up in a brief argument :mur: What about the shaft on my mower? Will it need to be longer or will it work as is?

 

[bcp]

What about the shaft on my mower? Will it need to be longer or will it work as is?

Only your shaft knows. Until you check the overlap distance.

This information sheet says a 50% overlap is needed:
http://www.farmimplements.com.au/manuals/PTO Shaft Information Sheet.pdf

Some say much less is OK.

More:
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/owning-operating/57934-how-much-pto-shaft-overlap.html
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachments/252432-pto-drive-shaft-overlap.html
How far can you extend a PTO shaft?
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachments/114523-pto-shaft-length.html
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/owning-operating/248453-correct-way-determine-length-pto.html
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachments/116365-pto-shaft-engagement.html

Bruce

 

[PhysAssist]

The problem with some QHs - the HF in my experience, is that the receptacles for the lift arms are too narrow and restrict swivel in the ball ends. This causes binding in tilt or when trying to bias the the 3pth to pull off center. All QHs, even the good ones extend the implement 4" further back, giving it more leverage on the tractor. Usually this is a negative to some degree.
larry

Hi Larry and Richard,

Thanks to you both for your honest answers regarding the HF QH failings.

I think as regards Larry's issues of binding, the reason I haven't experienced these issues is because I have not need to angle my implements beyond a mild degree and don't have TnT.

Richard, while I understand your reasoning and can't fault your choices, in my (truly limited) experience with the HF QH, none of those differences seem to amount to any deficiency in function for my (admittedly hobby) usage of my tractor and implements. My more dated experience with large farm tractors and 3-point implements just makes me happy to have the QH. at all.

If I recall correctly, the OP describes a use pattern more similar to mine than to yours, which is why I think he will be well served by one of the less expensive models.

Thanks again for your kind replies,
Thomas

 

[Biggreenavalanche]

Hi Larry and Richard,

Thanks to you both for your honest answers regarding the HF QH failings.

I think as regards Larry's issues of binding, the reason I haven't experienced these issues is because I have not need to angle my implements beyond a mild degree and don't have TnT.

Richard, while I understand your reasoning and can't fault your choices, in my (truly limited) experience with the HF QH, none of those differences seem to amount to any deficiency in function for my (admittedly hobby) usage of my tractor and implements. My more dated experience with large farm tractors and 3-point implements just makes me happy to have the QH. at all.

If I recall correctly, the OP describes a use pattern more similar to mine than to yours, which is why I think he will be well served by one of the less expensive models.

Thanks again for your kind replies,
Thomas

Thomas,

Yep, pretty much a hobby, definately not a professional farmer, they work too hard !! All the respect in the world for professional farmers !...my primary use is just maintaince of 26 acres, and annual deer lease "stuff"...I was considering a QH of some sort due to bad back and ease of hooking up implements...really liked the "delta" system, but way to much for me....after all this feedback, both good and bad, I'm adding a mid level priced QH to the "list o stuff" for my tractor. However, I am going to go forward on a limited basis ( one maybe two implements ) at first and make sure it is what I want for long term...if so then I'll go ahead and modify all implements, and buy all future implements with QH in mind...if not, then there will be a cheap QH on the market ! I truly appreciate the feedback this thread has provided, I really like the fact that folks will not only tout a system but will talk about the negative stuff as well...

one idea that it seems like several folks use really caught my attention...I really like the pallet with wheels storage idea ! So simple yet not something I would have thought of .... That too will be on the "list o stuff" !

Rich

Edit: I assume that for my tractor (40 hp, 4WD, Mahindra 4035, PST, loader) I will need a Cat I ? feel free to educate/correct ! LOL !