My NX6010

[Threepoint]

Really, the only downsides to the check valve is the little added cost and the fact that it defeats using any types of float functions. To me the cost is a minor factor (considering how much we spend on remote valves, cylinders, etc) but the float function is a "go" or "no-go" decision.

I looked into this a bit last year when deciding which hydraulic top link to go with, so I'll offer a point of clarification on float. It's important to distinguish between the kinds of float we're talking about. A check valve on the hydraulic top link or sidelink cylinder does not affect the normal "float" of the lift and link arms that we typically associate with a 3pt hitch. The implement will continue to float up and settle back down to its set position as it encounters changes in terrain, to the same extent as it would with the OEM screw-type top link or side link. What a check valve does do is defeat any separate float function that may be built into the control valve itself. Many tractors, including the Kioti NX and DK series, do not have float function capability in the remote valves to begin with, so nothing is lost in that regard by adding a check valve to the cylinder.

 

[Threepoint]

Moreover, consider the increased functionality check valves offer when one has the top and tilt using two of the three rear valves, but an attachment needs two functions as well. Screw around with taking off the tilt ram, or simply disconnect the ram, let the check valves do their thing, and use the remote that was serving the tilt ram on the attachment?

Safety, and increased functionality.

I'll push back on this a bit. Actually, so long as the disconnected quick-connects don't leak, and there is no leak in the cylinder's rod gland seal, the cylinder can't move when disconnected from the remote valves, even if there is no check valve. And that's so even if the main piston seal is defective! There is a recent TBN thread on this with a spirited discussion as to why this is so. It took me awhile to get my mind around it, but I finally became a believer. The real benefit of a check valve is to prevent leak down due to leaks in the system external to the cylinder itself.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

I'll push back on this a bit. Actually, so long as the disconnected quick-connects don't leak, and there is no leak in the cylinder's rod gland seal, the cylinder can't move when disconnected from the remote valves, even if there is no check valve. And that's so even if the main piston seal is defective! There is a recent TBN thread on this with a spirited discussion as to why this is so. It took me awhile to get my mind around it, but I finally became a believer. The real benefit of a check valve is to prevent leak down due to leaks in the system external to the cylinder itself.

I hear what you're saying but I do not want to trust my foot to the 4000 series Pioneer quick disconnect fitting that I paid $8.99 for at my local Fleet store.

My grapple leaks down, as does the new Frontier box grader and there is hardly any weight on them.

 

[s219]

I looked into this a bit last year when deciding which hydraulic top link to go with, so I'll offer a point of clarification on float. It's important to distinguish between the kinds of float we're talking about. A check valve on the hydraulic top link or sidelink cylinder does not affect the normal "float" of the lift and link arms that we typically associate with a 3pt hitch. The implement will continue to float up and settle back down to its set position as it encounters changes in terrain, to the same extent as it would with the OEM screw-type top link or side link. What a check valve does do is defeat any separate float function that may be built into the control valve itself. Many tractors, including the Kioti NX and DK series, do not have float function capability in the remote valves to begin with, so nothing is lost in that regard by adding a check valve to the cylinder.

Yes, correct, I am specifically talking about float from the remote valves to any attached cylinders. It's very desirable to have a floating top link for box blade use, grading, and for running a bush hog in undulating terrain.

Does Kioti really not offer float options with their rear remotes? That would be a huge oversight. Detent is also important for many uses. On my L3200, I had the option of standard double-acting valves, detent valves, and float-detent valves. Of the three in a stack, the first had to be standard double-acting, but the other two could be of either variety.

 

[Threepoint]

I hear what you're saying but I do not want to trust my foot to the 4000 series Pioneer quick disconnect fitting that I paid $8.99 for at my local Fleet store.

My grapple leaks down, as does the new Frontier box grader and there is hardly any weight on them.

Well, there is that! :laughing: :thumbsup:

 

[MinnesotaEric]

Yes, correct, I am specifically talking about float from the remote valves to any attached cylinders. It's very desirable to have a floating top link for box blade use, grading, and for running a bush hog in undulating terrain.

Does Kioti really not offer float options with their rear remotes? That would be a huge oversight. Detent is also important for many uses. On my L3200, I had the option of standard double-acting valves, detent valves, and float-detent valves. Of the three in a stack, the first had to be standard double-acting, but the other two could be of either variety.

To the best of my knowledge, Kioti does not offer a float function to their rear remotes valve for the NX series. Unless somebody has sized a spool with a float function for Kioti's rear valves, one way to add a float function would be the use of a D03 sub plate with an electric over hydraulic three way, four port valve with A and B open to T, and P closed when in float.

Imagine the floating motor is a double acting ram:

 

[IslandTractor]

I hear what you're saying but I do not want to trust my foot to the 4000 series Pioneer quick disconnect fitting that I paid $8.99 for at my local Fleet store. My grapple leaks down, as does the new Frontier box grader and there is hardly any weight on them.

Over what time period does your grapple or 3PT leak down? In seven years I have not had issues. If I did, I'd rebuild the cylinders.

Never having used a check valve equipped cylinder, I am still a bit baffled as to why they have become so trendy here. I understand Vince's problem with his tilt cylinder but not why a cylinder rebuild wouldn't have worked as well. I have a hard time imagining check valves as a safety device on a tractor unless you tend to take naps under your box blade.

If check valves are relatively cheap and so important, why do none of the manufacturers seem to install them as standard equipment at the factory?

 

[TJP89]

Over what time period does your grapple or 3PT leak down? In seven years I have not had issues. If I did, I'd rebuild the cylinders.

Never having used a check valve equipped cylinder, I am still a bit baffled as to why they have become so trendy here. I understand Vince's problem with his tilt cylinder but not why a cylinder rebuild wouldn't have worked as well. I have a hard time imagining check valves as a safety device on a tractor unless you tend to take naps under your box blade.

If check valves are relatively cheap and so important, why do none of the manufacturers seem to install them as standard equipment at the factory?

I'm a hydraulic dummy here, but I can understand the various points being made. Eric doesn't like the idea of a $9 part holding 600# of metal off his foot and wants some protection. Personally I agree, I don't even trust the 3PT, which does not leak at all as far as I know. Let's take my brushog, the only thing that can lift it is the tractor 3PT, so to work on the blades I have to hook up and lift it off the ground. I then always get some blocks and lower the thing back down on to supports while I'm under it. I know the tractor will hold it up, but I'd prefer not to trust my life to the weakest link in the tractor hydraulic system. Seems like just some extra safety.

 

[TJP89]

Over what time period does your grapple or 3PT leak down? In seven years I have not had issues. If I did, I'd rebuild the cylinders.

Never having used a check valve equipped cylinder, I am still a bit baffled as to why they have become so trendy here. I understand Vince's problem with his tilt cylinder but not why a cylinder rebuild wouldn't have worked as well. I have a hard time imagining check valves as a safety device on a tractor unless you tend to take naps under your box blade.

If check valves are relatively cheap and so important, why do none of the manufacturers seem to install them as standard equipment at the factory?

I'm a hydraulic dummy here, but I can understand the various points being made. Eric doesn't like the idea of a $9 part holding 600# of metal off his foot and wants some protection. Personally I agree, I don't even trust the 3PT, which does not leak at all as far as I know. Let's take my brushog, the only thing that can lift it is the tractor 3PT, so to work on the blades I have to hook up and lift it off the ground. I then always get some blocks and lower the thing back down on to supports while I'm under it. I know the tractor will hold it up, but I'd prefer not to trust my life to the weakest link in the tractor hydraulic system. Seems like just some extra safety.

 

[IslandTractor]

I'm a hydraulic dummy here, but I can understand the various points being made. Eric doesn't like the idea of a $9 part holding 600# of metal off his foot and wants some protection. Personally I agree, I don't even trust the 3PT, which does not leak at all as far as I know. Let's take my brushog, the only thing that can lift it is the tractor 3PT, so to work on the blades I have to hook up and lift it off the ground. I then always get some blocks and lower the thing back down on to supports while I'm under it. I know the tractor will hold it up, but I'd prefer not to trust my life to the weakest link in the tractor hydraulic system. Seems like just some extra safety.

1) Nobody has any business placing any body part under a hydraulically raised box blade (or other implement), ever. There is simple no reason to do that. Yes, a foot might accidentally get underneath but that would be a rare event. Hydraulic hoses controlling a topping lift might rarely burst or disconnect but the odds of that happening while your foot is accidentally under a box blade is infinitesimal. If you think it is reasonable to pay an extra hundred bucks or more for insurance against that ultra rare event then go ahead.

2) I wouldn't work under an implement unless it was blocked. Even with a check valve there is a risk a lever could get pushed. I seriously doubt OSHA would accept check valves in lieu of proper blocking.

3) We all drive around in vehicles traveling over 60 mph routinely and those vehicles depend on many parts that cost way less than $9 to stay under control. I think the $9 part argument is bogus.