quick hitch

[spo307]

what is the difference between pats quick hitch and this type i would think this type would be easier?

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Pat's is adjustable and only hooks at the lower pins. The full 3pt QH that you have shown is a set dimension and all of your implements have to match those width dimensions. If you want to take the time to have all of your implements match, it is better IMO. A lot of people don't want to go to the trouble of doing that, so they use the Pat's QH.

 

[puckgrinder85]

It is easier with that, if like said all your attachments accept it properly. I had to do a little work on a few implements to get them all the same, but once thats done I just back up lift the 3pt and slap the handles down and away I go.

 

[94BULLITT]

Pats will require a longer toplink, the QH will not.

 

[clee4020]

Pats will require a longer toplink, the QH will not.

I didn't have to get a longer toplink when I got my mine from Pat.

 

[daugen]

all of your implements have to match those width dimensions.

I'm in the process of making the same decision, and I just don't understand why Cat 1 or Cat 2 implements shouldn't be standard sized, both
in the pin size and the distances between them. Isn't this an agreed upon standard?
If I bought all new three point implements from major makers, would this still be a problem, or is it just older equipment?

 

[94BULLITT]

all of your implements have to match those width dimensions.

I'm in the process of making the same decision, and I just don't understand why Cat 1 or Cat 2 implements shouldn't be standard sized, both
in the pin size and the distances between them. Isn't this an agreed upon standard?
If I bought all new three point implements from major makers, would this still be a problem, or is it just older equipment?

Sometimes a old implement will work other times it will not. All of my older implements that are not QH compatible is because the toplink spacing is to tall or a reinforcement is in the way for the top hook on the QH.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

all of your implements have to match those width dimensions.

I'm in the process of making the same decision, and I just don't understand why Cat 1 or Cat 2 implements shouldn't be standard sized, both
in the pin size and the distances between them. Isn't this an agreed upon standard?
If I bought all new three point implements from major makers, would this still be a problem, or is it just older equipment?

I think for the most part it is older implements as far as the dimensions go. But even today's new implements are not all quick hitch compatable. Those are some big hooks that have to fit on the connection points and every manufacturer does not allow for them on all of their implements.

 

[gwdixon]

all of your implements have to match those width dimensions.

I'm in the process of making the same decision, and I just don't understand why Cat 1 or Cat 2 implements shouldn't be standard sized, both
in the pin size and the distances between them. Isn't this an agreed upon standard?
If I bought all new three point implements from major makers, would this still be a problem, or is it just older equipment?

Manufacturers are getting better at standardizing attachments for the 3PH. But Cat 1 and Cat 2 will never be the same. Their basic standards are different.

Some manufacturers will make their implements adaptable to both standards but I'm not sure how something like that will affect the OP's QH.

The top link hook on the pictured QH can be problematical on some implements - even modern ones. Sometimes the top link attachment has a bolt, spacer, or reinforcement bar just under the top link attachment point that interferes with hooking up. You just have to get off of the tractor to hook up the top link in that case.

But then it is not much different than the Pat's. Plus, the Pat's will accommodate any lower lift point variations. Get a Cat 2 Pat's and you can bush the Cat 1 implements to fit perfectly. The bushings are cheap.

Oh, and you may need longer PTO shafts, or an extension, with the Pat's or the frame style QH. The Pat's on my M7040 is an insert that replaced the telescoping lift arm ends so there is no variation in arm length.

 

[Cigar Face]

I didn't have to get a longer toplink when I got my mine from Pat.

Maybe the case for your application but no matter what way you slice it, the pats system restricts the length of the top link. It's basic physics

 

[gwdixon]

Maybe the case for your application but no matter what way you slice it, the pats system restricts the length of the top link. It's basic physics

Not to be argumentative, but the slide-in or weld-on Pat's leaves the tractor's 3PH geometry the same.

clee7020 may have already had a longer top link or at least one that could reach far enough. Besides, longer top links are cheap as are PTO extensions. It is the PTO shafts that seriously impact the budget.

 

[radioman]

wow. I am amazed at the various responses here.
In my opinion - the quick hitch is nice since the lower arms is "already" spread apart and same everytime you backup to hook up. pats depends on your tractor style. is there a spring on it? sliding or bolt style? With pats - you need to hook up the upper toplink manually everytime. The QH, the toplink hook up depends on the final hieght of your implement. I have one of those black qh's and sometimes I have to switch the hook part to fit various implements. I pulled the bolts out and use a wagon pin to speed changing heights.

 

[clee4020]

Not to be argumentative, but the slide-in or weld-on Pat's leaves the tractor's 3PH geometry the same.

clee7020 may have already had a longer top link or at least one that could reach far enough. Besides, longer top links are cheap as are PTO extensions. It is the PTO shafts that seriously impact the budget.

You're right, I have the slide in model, but I had Pat build me a set that sticks out about an inch further than factory. I did this because my bushhog sometimes would hit my back tires. I still have plenty left on my top link. It also probably makes a difference that I have a 95 hp tractor. I imagine the top links on some smaller tractors would have to be replaced.

 

[spo307]

I agree with radioman. Why not make it as easy as possible. I have a flail mower, disc, rake, rototller, 500# spreader, all are very close to 26.5 centers, the only one would need adjustment is the top link on the flail is straight up and down needs to be modified to stick out.

 

[mikim]

I bought one of those black QHs from Harbor Freight a few years ago. It was under $100 and I figured if it's junk and breaks then I'm not out that much and I'll go with something better. It isn't the best thing made ...but I'm still waiting for it to break. I use it everyday - stays on the tractor unless the backhoe is on. There is an adapter for it that replaces the hook for matching up to some implements that won't do the hook.

 

[clee4020]

I bought one of those black QHs from Harbor Freight a few years ago. It was under $100 and I figured if it's junk and breaks then I'm not out that much and I'll go with something better. It isn't the best thing made ...but I'm still waiting for it to break. I use it everyday - stays on the tractor unless the backhoe is on. There is an adapter for it that replaces the hook for matching up to some implements that won't do the hook.

I have a JD Cat 2 QH on a JD 7330 and I bought a Harbor Freight QH it put on the JD 4020. Our big stuff (subsoiler, planters, grader, hay forks, etc) is QH compatible with JD QH, but the Harbor Freight QH top hook (even though it is adjustable) is not compatible. I have no intention of using the JD 4020 or the Harbor Freight QH to pull a 7 or 9 tooth subsoiler or a 10' hydraulic grader blade, but I would like to have everything set up the same because I do use the 4020 to move hay, bushhog and other lighter duty jobs. So, so far my Harbor Freight has been useless.

 

[KennyG]

I have a JD Cat 2 QH on a JD 7330 and I bought a Harbor Freight QH it put on the JD 4020. Our big stuff (subsoiler, planters, grader, hay forks, etc) is QH compatible with JD QH, but the Harbor Freight QH top hook (even though it is adjustable) is not compatible. I have no intention of using the JD 4020 or the Harbor Freight QH to pull a 7 or 9 tooth subsoiler or a 10' hydraulic grader blade, but I would like to have everything set up the same because I do use the 4020 to move hay, bushhog and other lighter duty jobs. So, so far my Harbor Freight has been useless.

Just curious as to why the HF quick hitch top hook is not compatible. As has been discussed here before, there are a couple of easy fixes that take care of some top hook issues. Some of the HF top hooks seem undersized because they aren't forged straight but a little grinding on the inside fixes that. The other problem is that some implements have a narrow top hook frame and the bolts on the QH interfere. This is fixed by using short pins so the bolt head doesn't stick out.

 

[Illini22]

Their is a $12 adapter with the HF quick hitch if the hook isn't compatible. I bought both at the same time and it has been invaluable!! All of my attachments work except a king mutter rake. They welded the pins an inch to wide. It wasn't harbor freights fault. It needs to be 27.5" apart and te implement will work.
I have no experience with pats system. It was more money but I have never heard any negative comments about quality. The Harbor freight quick hitch just keeps on going too thou!!

 

[Cigar Face]

Not to be argumentative, but the slide-in or weld-on Pat's leaves the tractor's 3PH geometry the same.

clee7020 may have already had a longer top link or at least one that could reach far enough. Besides, longer top links are cheap as are PTO extensions. It is the PTO shafts that seriously impact the budget.

no problem buddy, but the one pictued in the original post link offsets the attaching point by about 3 inches and can make a good bit difference to some. especially those using a hydraulic top link. It is not the same as stock at all. Now when you use a harbor freight quick hitch, it keeps everything the same length

 

[gwdixon]

no problem buddy, but the one pictued in the original post link offsets the attaching point by about 3 inches and can make a good bit difference to some. especially those using a hydraulic top link. It is not the same as stock at all. Now when you use a harbor freight quick hitch, it keeps everything the same length

Right you are about the hydraulic top link. In fact, that is why the Pat's that I put on was the kind that doesn't mess up the OEM geometry.

Just to state again, one must be careful with the PTO shafts that have to extend farther to reach the attachment point on the tractor. But for around $20 that can be remedied.

Pto Adapter 1-3/8 X6 Spline Male X 1-3/8X6 Spline Female Pto Adapter