Pat's Easy Change Vs Quick Hitch

[deere5105]

I now have a JD 5303, 64 HP at engine, that has straight, fixed draft link arms. Previous tractor had extendable draft links that made connecting implements very easy. In looking into ordering factory extendable draft links, the cost would be more than either the Pat's Easy Change or the Quick Hitch. Sometimes the implements are stored on unlevel ground further making connecting the straight link arms a pain. Standard procedure I use is connecting lower lift pins first then connecting top link. I have the following questions on comparing the two units:

1) When using the Quick Hitch, how are you dealing with the top link? It appears that the Quick Hitch makes the whole 3 PT system become one functioning unit. Are you forced to use a Hydraulic Top Link to be able to move the top of the Quick Hitch in and out to get the location right WHILE lifting the hitch? It also seems you wouldn't have much flexibility if the vertical dimensions of the implement being connected were different since this is now one fixed piece. With the Pat's Easy Change it seems you can still move and rotate the Top Link as needed to fit.

2) It seems the Quick Hitch also defines the width of an attachment connection in that each attachment has to be set to the width of the Quick Hitch. It appears the Pat's Easy Change has an adjustable bar to set or change the distance giving more flexibility.


I am not intending this to be a promotion of one or the other, just would like to get a better understanding of the basic operations of both. I have not had any hands-on experience with either of these systems.

 

[jenkinsph]

While the quick hitch makes it very easy to hook up implements it is necessary to make them fit once and for all. You can adjust your manual top link and in turn adjust the top hook position as you would with a standard hookup. I recommend having top n tilt hydraulics to make it all super easy to use. If you have alot of implements it makes it so much easier to change between them, most times from the tractor seat. I do have to get off to raise and lower stands or hook up the pto shafts.

Pat's system works better with a wide variety of implement widths and is adjustable. While it is easier than using the standard hitch it isn't near as easy as the quick hitch.

What I use is the telescopic links on two implements and the other 15 implements I have bought or modified for the IMatch system. My larger boxblade and the 3ph phd require me to remove the IMatch currently, I use the hydraulic auger now so the 3ph phd is for backup use only, that leaves the boxblade to modify when I get a chance.


All that said you need to assess your requirements to see which will work best in your use. If you can make everything IMatch compatible that is what I recommend. If you don't wan't to go to the trouble of fitting the oddball equipment then look into the Pat's system.

 

[RoyJackson]

Having had both the Pat's system and now a Deere Quick Hitch, the QH is a better way to go IF all of your implements are QH compatable or you're OK with modifying those that are not.
The Pat's system is more versatile and takes care of the worst part of hooking up an implement...the lower links. Using their spreader bar makes it even easier.

If you have a PTO driven implement, you still have to get off the tractor to hook up the drive shaft. BTW, either method is going to add 4" or so to the distance between the tractor's and implement's stub shafts so you may need longer driveshafts or a PTO Adapter.

When I bought my Deere QH, I thought it was gonna be the best thing since sliced bread...it's not. If I had to do it over again, I'd have probably kept the Pat's system I had on my old 790.

 

[deere5105]

I wouldn't mind having the Hydraulic Top Link for changes on the go, but without the Quick Hitch seems like it would be more back and forth trying to get the Top Link set for hook up. We have a couple of other tractors and I like the idea of being able to share implements and not sure I want to modify everything to fit the Quick Hitch. Seems that could be a limitation?

The only PTO driven implement I have it this time is a JD MX6 rotary cutter. Not sure how that would adapt to the longer "set back".

So in a nut shell, the limitations of the Quick Hitch are that some implements will not fit and it is recommended to have HTL and Top n Tilt. One of those issues too is that at this time I only have one rear SCV and control. I do not have any Hydraulic equipped attachments at this time.

Are there any limitations to the Pat's system? Sounds like it is the most universal and flexible. I assume this would allow for backing up, getting under and connecting to the bottom pins and then adjusting the Top Link to fit? I don't mind getting off to connect the top. I don't have a cab to get in and out of or any other issues preventing doing this.

Am I missing anything?

 

[Archer EV]

BTW, either method is going to add 4" or so to the distance between the tractor's and implement's stub shafts so you may need longer driveshafts or a PTO Adapter.

Roy,
I assume the Pat's system also means increasing the top link lengths by 4 inches. Did you find this to be the case?

 

[greg_g]

Roy,
I assume the Pat's system also means increasing the top link lengths by 4 inches. Did you find this to be the case?

about 4" for a Cat 2, maybe 3" for a Cat 1. But the same principle applies to the QH. I've had both, and was extremely disappointed in the QH. For a tractor that doesn't already have adjustable/extendable lower links, I highly recommend the PEC system

//greg//

 

[RoyJackson]

Roy,
I assume the Pat's system also means increasing the top link lengths by 4 inches. Did you find this to be the case?

The 4" on both the Pat's Easy Change and the QH comes from the distance from the lower link eyeballs to the hooks that connect to the implement. The top link will have to be lengthened by turning the adjusting rod.
I didn't have to, since my top link had adequate adjustment...but if you have one of the shorter top links (barrel lengths are different), you may have to purchase a longer one (which you would not have to do with a QH, BTW).Top links at TSC are about 30 bucks, IIRC.
I'm not sure why greg_g wrote, or implied, that the top link has to be adjusted for the QH...not so with the Deere brand QH I have...but I guess QH designs may differ.

BTW, there is no need or necessity for TnT or a hydraulic top link using either Pat's system or a QH. It's strictly a convenience feature for guys who don't want to leave the tractor's seat.

 

[nikdfish]

In addition to Pat's, there is also the Carter & Son's EZ-Hitch. It's link attachment is done on top of the arm rather than extending off the end. It is not as automatic as Pat's as you have to insert a pin & keeper on each side after positioning the EZ Hitch up against the implement's link pins.

I bought a set a while back & consider them well worth the money. They don't have the vertical alignment screws that Pat's do, and mine tended to flop around until I drilled & tapped a set of 4 holes on each for bolts to keep them more vertical.


Nick

 

[jenkinsph]

BTW, there is no need or necessity for TnT or a hydraulic top link using either Pat's system or a QH. It's strictly a convenience feature for guys who don't want to leave the tractor's seat.

I pointed out in my post above you can adjust manually.
While it isn't absolutely necessary (and neither is having a tractor for most people) it does make it easier to align with an implement that isn't setting on level ground. The whole point in having either a PEC or quick hitch is tomake it easier to hookup implements. Time is money when you do this for a living.

 

[RoyJackson]

While it isn't absolutely necessary (and neither is having a tractor for most people) it does make it easier to align with an implement that isn't setting on level ground. The whole point in having either a PEC or quick hitch is tomake it easier to hookup implements. Time is money when you do this for a living.

No doubt about that...and if I was making my living operating a tractor or running a farm, I'd want every convenience feature I could afford...but I'm just not in that much of a hurry.

 

[greg_g]

I'm not sure why greg_g wrote, or implied, that the top link has to be adjusted for the QH...not so with the Deere brand QH I have...but I guess QH designs may differ..

I phrased it that way because JD calls their quick attach system "iMatch". It's a totally different geometry than the generic QH I owned (from Harbor Freight), which required the same toplink extension as did the PEC system that quickly replaced it.

//greg//

 

[Chugbug]

My only experience is with Pats system and I would recommend it. As stated it adds about 4" of length so be aware of that. Easiest system I've ever used and you don't need to modify any of your attachments (at least in my experience). Pats is very well made and a great company to work with.

 

[deere5105]

I guess my reason for asking if the HTL was necessary for the Quick Hitch type, is because it seems like there might be occasions where you would need to tilt the top in or out to get in the proper location to connect with the top of the 3PT. On most of my attachments I find myself adjusting the top link some one way or the other. Maybe that is where the "making all attachments I-Match compatible" comes in.

Sounds like the PEC is the least involved to make useable on different type implements. So far some have went from Quick Hitch to PEC, but have not heard any going from PEC to Quick Hitch.

 

[jenkinsph]

I guess my reason for asking if the HTL was necessary for the Quick Hitch type, is because it seems like there might be occasions where you would need to tilt the top in or out to get in the proper location to connect with the top of the 3PT. On most of my attachments I find myself adjusting the top link some one way or the other. Maybe that is where the "making all attachments I-Match compatible" comes in.

Sounds like the PEC is the least involved to make useable on different type implements. So far some have went from Quick Hitch to PEC, but have not heard any going from PEC to Quick Hitch.

Your reasoning is correct about the HTL being necessary if you want to quickly adjust for an implement that is leaning front to back one way or the other.

With three points to connect to that are fixed in place then it is much easier to do everytime in the future if all the implements are made the same. You have a choice of either fixing the implements to all fit the quickhitch or getting off the tractor with the pats and making simple adjustments each time you change implements.

 

[RoyJackson]

I guess my reason for asking if the HTL was necessary for the Quick Hitch type, is because it seems like there might be occasions where you would need to tilt the top in or out to get in the proper location to connect with the top of the 3PT.

Even though my rear finishing mower is Frontier (Deere, manufactured by Woods) and is QH (iMatch) compatable, I still have to lengthen or shorten the top link...shortening for raised transport, lengthening for more float.

Neither a QH or Pat's does everything...but after trying to hook up a rotary cutter to the lower link eyes (using brute strength, levers and a lot of cursing), one can really appreciate them. Either is better then just the lower link eyes...

 

[Redneck in training]

There is another option.
Delta Hook 3 Point Hitch - the 3 point hitch system for tractors that pays for itself
It is expensive though. If you need to change implements often and use them to make living or you are rich then it might make a sense.

 

[foggy1111]

I tried to make a Horrible Freight Quick Hitch work. After several hours and lots of aggravation I finally gave up and bought Pats. I

I first used Pats on my JD 790 and when I bought my 3320 I kept the Pats for the new tractor. Glad I kept 'em. :thumbsup:

I have quite a few 3 point implements. All brands, some old, some new. The Pats fits 'em all.....and I have not had to alter any PTO shafts on any of my implements. For me the extra few inches in length has been a non-event.

Maybe you can save a minute here and there with the JD I Match quick hitch if you take the time to alter everything or buy JD implements. But to me, once the lower links are connected via the Pats....the rest is quick and easy.

Having the factory extendable links would be nice....but to me the Pats work just fine.....and I have not had to alter anything.

Hmmmm....this is about my 6th endorsement of Pats.......Do you think I have earned the free baseball cap yet?

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Last year I added Pat's option to our 1976 60 HP Cat#2 265 MF tractor with straight arms. With our mismatch of equipment it was the way to go. On some very rough and hilly ground the hitch system has held up well with a VERY heavy 7' bush hog.

The extra 4" of space making hooking up the PTO much easier too.:thumbsup:

 

[taborekle]

I use a Land Pride (LP) cat 1 QH with my attachments, a Tractor Supply carryall, a LP blade, a rotary cutter and a LP tiller with my Kubota 2920.

For adjusting the toplink (manual for me), I position the QH lower arms below the attachment pins, then get off the tractor and spin the top link turn adjuster (turn buckle?) to fit the top link hook under the attachment top link pin. Then I can (while standing next to the tractor) just hit the lift control and scoop it up.

For most of my attachments, they share the same top link position on the QH, so if it's already set correctly, I don't have to get off the tractor, but just back up to the attachment and scoop it up.

If the attachment has a different scoop height for the top link versus run height for the top link, then I have to do the following (note that only my blade seems to be like this).

I go through the scoop as described above. Once I capture the blade, then I lower the blade to the ground to take the weight off the top link, and then adjust the top link turn buckle in. When it starts to take the weight and give resistance to turning, I lift it and set it back down and repeat. When done I can usually lift my blade a good 16 inches off the ground, giving me lots of clearance for the blade during transit.

I really like my QH. I think it's superior to the Pats system as I don't have to monitor or adjust the width of the lower lift arms. The advantage that I can see to the Pats system is if you have a auger. For that I have to remove my QH, but you could keep on the Pats system.

I have had to get my drive shaft extended on my rotary cutter as I often bush hog my dam and that requires me to back the rotary cutter off a flat road and down a steep hill, which requires a longer drive shaft. Either the Pats or the QH would have required the longer shaft, as they both extend the implement back about the same amount.

Hope that helps....

 

[KU Gator]

You mentioned in your original post that some of your implements are stored on unlevel ground. It doesn't really matter with the Pat's system. It will just grab one side quicker than the other. Even if you drop a rotary mower without putting blocks under the front, you can just pick it right up.

If you have turnbuckles for stabilizers on the arms, they are kind of a pain with the Pat's system as they let the arms collapse in more when there is no implement on there. I switched my turnbuckles out for telescopic stabilizers and can just set them to the width of my implements and just back right in and lift up. Then get off and hook up the top link.