Want quick hitch but am confused by choices. Which one?

[jenkinsph]

sixdogs,
A new IMatch cat1 is about 300 plus tax, bushings to put on the implements can cost about $35/implement on average. Some implements require welding and modifying to work with the IMatch. In my opinion it is well worth the trouble. I have two of them now and may buy a third for my 110. Most implements can be dropped and a second one hitched up in a minute or two from the tractor seat. On some such as a rear blade I have to get off the tractor to set a jack stand, others I have to attach the pto shaft but none require prying or beating on to hitch up. Those days are over thank goodness.

 

[bumperm]

My B3350 came with both telescoping stabilizers and lift arm ends (the lift arm ball ends unlatch and can extend aft and up. Once the attachment is on and raised or jostled, haven't quite figured out which, they relatch on their own). Though pricey, I opted for the Kubota hydraulic outlets for top and tilt. Thought I would have to install push pull knobs back aft to operated the T&T levers from outside for ease of use while hooking up attachments, but the levers are within easy reach when the rear window is unlatched (i.e. left hand can hold and position top link while right hand reaches in to operate lever).

Had top and tilt on my first Kubota and found that, while it didn't make changing attachments "effortless", it did make it fairly easy - and that was with fixed length lift arms and turnbuckle sway links. So, given I don't change attachments every day, a 3-point quick hitch might not be all that worthwhile. I'm still working on installing the top and tilt (have both cylinders modified and ready to go, just waiting on hydraulic fittings). My plan is to try it for awhile without the QH.

bumper

 

[jenkinsph]

My B3350 came with both telescoping stabilizers and lift arm ends (the lift arm ball ends unlatch and can extend aft and up. Once the attachment is on and raised or jostled, haven't quite figured out which, they relatch on their own). Though pricey, I opted for the Kubota hydraulic outlets for top and tilt. Thought I would have to install push pull knobs back aft to operated the T&T levers from outside for ease of use while hooking up attachments, but the levers are within easy reach when the rear window is unlatched (i.e. left hand can hold and position top link while right hand reaches in to operate lever).

Had top and tilt on my first Kubota and found that, while it didn't make changing attachments "effortless", it did make it fairly easy - and that was with fixed length lift arms and turnbuckle sway links. So, given I don't change attachments every day, a 3-point quick hitch might not be all that worthwhile. I'm still working on installing the top and tilt (have both cylinders modified and ready to go, just waiting on hydraulic fittings). My plan is to try it for awhile without the QH.

bumper

I use the telescopic link, topntilt and IMatch, all are worthwhile. I change implements frequently on some days so that does factor in.

 

[PhysAssist]

Well, to those who posted their stories about failed QH's, I stand corrected, but still, that's two out of how many that are out there in daily use?.

If you have a tractor on the upper end of the Cat I HP spectrum, it might well make sense to buy a beefier QH, but then again, how many HF QH's could you have bought and used by the time you buy one I match or whatever other expensive QH you want to name?.

I have no problen with any and everyone making their own choices and being happy with them, but there is a not-so-fine line between talking about what is good about your choice and bashing someone else's.

There is nothing wrong with the choice I and many others have made to save our money for other things either, and if I ever break imine or if it ever fails, I will be very forthright in coming back here and admitting it too.

 

[sixdogs]

94BULLITT--spectacular videos and boy doesn't that tell the story. The imatch looks really well made. Thank you for posting those videos.

Really, thanks to everyone for all the details I was not even aware of. Who knew? Sometimes when you mentally block things out because you know you'll never be interested you get out of the info stream. Then when you get back in the game--as always happens-- you have to learn from square one. Thanks for all the info and helping me out.

Switching certain implements is really a hassle because of weight and size, especially on CAT II things. Even some CAT I things are now over 1,000 awkward lbs and it's like trying to hook up a woodstove to the tractor. :dog:

 

[FatTire]

How close do these measurements have to be and what numbers am I looking for? What type of clearance?

Here is a photo showing the left 3pt attachment. The tan part is the Landpride blade, the black is the Speeco QH. Notice there is a flange on the QH on both sides of the latching member. The right flange is wedged up against the Landpride's bracket. This might be hard to see because the right flange is in the shadow. A photo of the right 3pt attachment would show that side is just as tight. Landpride advertises this as "QH Compatible" and it would be compatible with this QH if the QH didn't have those flanges.

 

[FatTire]

Photo above should have been rotated. The "right" side is at the bottom.

 

[SPYDERLK]

It's time to get a Cat I quick hitch and I'm 85% of the way convinced I need one. What I want is something that works well, fits most of the stuff I have and is something I can just use without the bending and welding so often written about. User friendly is my motto and I'm trying to skip the learning curve. I don't want to do the Pat's thing because it puts my weight further out. I want a quick hitch.

In reading the posts here over the years I know about Harbor Freight and that some say it doesn't always fit right. Speeco sounded good but a lot of people said it was of hit or miss quality as well. Everyone seems to like the Deere IMatch but I'm not totally convinced I want to spend what it costs and I don't even know how much that is. Surely there are other makers?

Help me out please. What do you have for a quick hitch, how well do you like it and does it work like you thought it would? Would you buy the same thing a second time round or do something different? Do you even need a quick hitch? What else do I need to know or understand?

Any advice appreciated.

Each major design offers different advantages. Pats and others that go on the lift arms only, accomodate different width implements easily but separate action top link hookups are always needed. Some of the lift arm ones go above the lift arms and so dont extend the load back any ... just wont go quite as lo. Pats and all the 3PH type QHs extend the implement back about 4" from normal. The 3PH type have a little different effect on lift geometry tho, preserving articulation at the original ball ends during lift. This gives them a slight advantage over Pats when lifting and carrying implement loads. If you have any implements that are near max tractor lift capability the lesser lift stress of the 3PH type will give your system some needed ease. -- One of our Kubs using Pats broke its rocker shaft internally carrying a heavy implement. My wife hit a bump she considered not bad and it fell to the ground.
larry

 

[GManBart]

Pats and all the 3PH type QHs extend the implement back about 4" from normal. The 3PH type have a little different effect on lift geometry tho, preserving articulation at the original ball ends during lift. This gives them a slight advantage over Pats when lifting and carrying implement loads. If you have any implements that are near max tractor lift capability the lesser lift stress of the 3PH type will give your system some needed ease. -- One of our Kubs using Pats broke its rocker shaft internally carrying a heavy implement. My wife hit a bump she considered not bad and it fell to the ground.
larry

Untrue, at least as far as absolutes go.

Pat's offers a version that welds to your lift arms after you cut off the ball ends...making them the same length at they started at. It's cleaner, probably stronger, and resolves any loss of lifting power, and geometry issues.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Thanks. Hadnt heard of that one. I wouldnt consider it for mine tho because its a "gulp" move, and I want to keep the full articulation - pivot and twist - that the balls give. Too bad there isnt some option that provides the convenient hookup we all want and preserves all the mechanical superiorities of the original. Id retrofit my wifes tractor immediately! :wink:
larry