Pat's Easy Change Vs Quick Hitch

[dwellonrooftop]

I use to have a HF and bought the Pat's and really like the them so well that I installed a hydraulic toplink THAT'S THE WAY TO GO!!!

 

[jpm1]

Truth be known Pat's is the way to go! I didn't go that way because i have 2 tractors and the cost to do 2 tractors is a bit higher than i could go. I got my first HF quick hitch at a garage sale for 5$. The owner said it was junk and it wouldn't work. Guess i was a bit smarter than the hitch. After some modifications all but on piece on equipment works with it. Just bought a second HF QH for 49.95$ @ the store because it was damaged goods, well the box was. My Mahindra hitch is a little tough to hook up to but the Kioti with adjustable lift arms is real easy to hook to! I really wouldn't even need the QH but the price was right. If i had to do major work to make the implements match my hitch it would be Pat's for certain!. . .John

 

[deere5105]

Black Friday discount pushing me toward making this purchase. Definitely decided on PEC. With no Cat 2 implements, gut feeling is to purchase the Cat 2 to Cat 1 and not have to deal with any bushings. So far have not had any issues damaging any of the Cat 1 implements.

Any last words on insisting on going with the Cat 2 PEC?

 

[Gale Hawkins]

I decided bushings are cheap and once they go on they never have to come off of the old implements and stay Cat 2 ready.

 

[deere5105]

I decided bushings are cheap and once they go on they never have to come off of the old implements and stay Cat 2 ready.

I guess the hang up is there are currently no Cat 2 implements, not sure there ever will be. All other tractors are fixed Cat 1 which encourages purchasing Cat 1 implements so to not be tied to the one machine that can use them. Thoughts of if got in a bind and the Cat 2 tractor was down could simply swap machines and keep going. Not sure this would ever happen, but you never know.

I guess your view would be to just store the Cat 1 to Cat 2 bushings on the Cat 2 tractor and "bush up" on the implement as needed?

 

[RoyJackson]

I guess your view would be to just store the Cat 1 to Cat 2 bushings on the Cat 2 tractor and "bush up" on the implement as needed?

That's what I'd do...

Bushings (and the roll pins) are pretty cheap...just don't buy them at your Deere dealer (then they're made of gold). Tractor Supply, Agri-Supply and others; have them (probably online too). The bushings kit (lower links only) cost about 10 bucks.

I had the PEC on my old 790. I have a Quick-Hitch now and there are times I wish I had kept the PEC.

 

[deere5105]

Thanks for the quick responses and offers of opinions. Planning to go with the standard Cat 2 and move forward. Truthfully have been using the Cat 2 hitch on the Cat 1 implements without issue, but will make plans to invest in bushings to tighten up the fit. This seems safest way to proceed and doesn't put the PEC in a position to be the "weak link" in the equation.

 

[chim]

It looks like it may be April till I get around to using the QH, so there's plenty of time to develop a plan. When giving the hitch a once-over before putting it in the shed, it's obvious some tweaking of existing implements will be necessary. I dropped the RFM yesterday and hooked up to the scraper blade. Typically that stays on till the grass starts growing again.

1. The scraper blade frame is such that a piece of steel below the top pin will block the top hook of the QH from grabbing it. Not a big deal to rework that, and it could be the same on other implements. After building the cab, reworking a piece of steel here and there is small stuff - and it only needs done once.

2. More head scratching comes from looking at the RFM. It is designed so the toplink attachment to what I'd describe as a swinging clevis presents more of a challange. If that were eliminated it looks like the RFM won't be able to follow the ground contours. With the swinging clevis arrangement the mower deck can ride over the ups and downs. Eliminating the swing action it looks like the deck will want to remain on the same plane as the tractor, raising the rear wheels off the ground when cresting a rise and rainsing the front wheels when coming to the bottom of a hill. How do you deal with that? I'm pretty sure I could come up with an arrangement that would still allow movement but am not anxious to redesign the mounting frame.

 

[RoyJackson]

2. More head scratching comes from looking at the RFM. It is designed so the toplink attachment to what I'd describe as a swinging clevis presents more of a challange. If that were eliminated it looks like the RFM won't be able to follow the ground contours. With the swinging clevis arrangement the mower deck can ride over the ups and downs. Eliminating the swing action it looks like the deck will want to remain on the same plane as the tractor, raising the rear wheels off the ground when cresting a rise and rainsing the front wheels when coming to the bottom of a hill. How do you deal with that? I'm pretty sure I could come up with an arrangement that would still allow movement but am not anxious to redesign the mounting frame.

Before you go too far, look in your manual, if you have one for your RFM.

I bought a used Woods Bush Bull with the expectation I'd have to modify it for my QH. Turns out there was a procedure in the manual to reconfigure the upper "A" frame for QH adaptation...no other parts required. Works good too!
So, on this chilly day, might as well scan that manual...

 

[chim]

Roy, Thank you very much. My Landpride manual doesn't have that info. After checking the Woods Brush Bull manual on line I see what you mean. Fortunately the Landpride has the same type of frame and it will be simple. Thanks again!