First of all, let me apologize for the tone of my post. Sometimes what we wish to convey in words comes out less well than we would like. I was not trying to be condescending nor argumentative.
Your write-up on your own MX5100 rear remote installation, I feel, is the gold standard on adding rear remotes on Kubotas and was my example when I did my rear remotes (though I have a backhoe). I am curious though, why you don't use that type of system for this particular installation?
No where have I suggested an electric valve. I agree with you that electric is a non-starter.
I was (in an apparently failed attempt) just trying to point out that there is really no need to run the backhoe through the rear remote work ports. It doesn't result in much of a discount, if any, in cost to do that. Just adding the rear remote valve in series with the backhoe loop preserves the existing plumbing for the most part. The only thing that need be run through the rear remote valve is the top link.
Again, if my tone was in anyway imprudent, I apologize.
K5lwq is the one that suggested an electric valve.
It was my reply to him about not wanting to add an extra set of couplers in which you had quoted. So I was under the impression that you were going with his suggestion to add the electric valve.
Further when you stated just putting the female couplers right on the valve to save a few hoses...I was further under the impression you were talking about electric. Because locating a valve that is ergonomically comfortable to actuate, yet still easy to get to for hooking up the QD's seems an impossible proposition with a manual valve.
This tractor is 8 years old. IT is owned by a landscaping company with ~15 employees in which I am friends with the owner. The ONLY attachments that are used on a regular basis are a tiller, box blade, and a backhoe. With once-twice a year being a sickle mower for mowing under solar panels.
That said, the ONLY use for a remote is a toplink with the box blade. And want it to be as idiot proof as possible.
The owner asked me if there was any way to do a toplink. His thinking was it would be easy since the backhoe hydraulics were already established. overlooking the fact that a valve still needed to be added.
There are already TWO couplers back there for the backhoe. I would really rather NOT add another two (again...idiot proof). And would use the two hoses ALREADY going to those couplers for the P and PB ports of the new valve. Only having to add a T hose Tee'd in and two hoses connecting the work ports back to the existing couplings.
My though was to have a SINGLE detent valve, again to make it idiot proof so they dont try and feed the backhoe backwards. But after the feedback here....I like the idea of a regular ole valve with a mechanical way to keep it activated so as to not bump a lever in detent and toast a pump....again, idiot proofing it.
The whole idea of running the backhoe through the rear remotes....is to save having to buy another set (since the backhoe ones are already there) and again....to idiot proof it so they dont try to hook the TL cylinder to the backhoe ports or vice versa. One set of couplers...of different sizes as they are now....eliminates any other way to possible hook anything up.
So, I hope that explains why I am not doing a setup like mine....or adding multiple sets of remotes. The owner of said landscape company has said, its not a huge deal to get off and adjust toplink...but thought if it wasnt super expensive....it would be nice to have a hydraulic toplink. And with a simple valve ~$100, and a few hoses and fittings ~$100....then whatever a cylinder costs. (another issue as this is a tractor that "should" use a 2.5" cylinder but is cat 1. And all the cat 1 cylinders are 2"). But I have said...Under $500 should be doable. Dont want to have to eat ~$100 to buy a couple sets of ag couplers to "add" remotes and leave the backhoe circuit intact.
Hopefully that will clarify some things.
