why shouldn't I do this to the 3PTH? geometry?

MichKubota · Oct 26, 2011

One additional concern with quick hitch (eliminating the ball mechanism) doesn't allow you to offset (left or right) the implement. Not sure if that is true, but appears to me that way. You can probably still use original lift point (with the ball joint) if you do want to offset implement, assuming the new quick hitch is not in the way.

clarityconnect · Oct 26, 2011

From your photo it appears you have welded the Carter hitch to your lift arms instead of using the pin holes in the quick hitch and pins through the lift arm balls. Doing this you have eliminated any slight alignment play between impliment and 3 pt arms, thus making a very rigid engagement, which will put an increased strain on 3 pt. hitch arms and the implement pins. Personally I don't think I would have welded the Carter hitches on the lift arms as I like the little play that is utilized by the lift arm balls.

oldboyscout · Oct 26, 2011

hadn't thought about the PTO shaft. I'll check carefully.

I wasn't aware the the pin on QA had any play since there is a tube that slips over the lift arm and pins through the ball.
There does seem to be a little play where the implement pins sit in the QA.
The only thing I need play for I think is my box blade, and as was mentioned it looks like I can still attach that the normal way if necessary.

oldboyscout · Oct 26, 2011

<You may have looked at and done this but you probably have two holes in the arms for the lift linkage and is you use the holes nearest the top of the arms get the lift point where it was. >

yes the lift linkage has 2 adjustments but it's normally on the lower one. If I use the upper will it get worse?

another question then, what are those adjustments for?

chopped · Oct 26, 2011

clarityconnect said:
From your photo it appears you have welded the Carter hitch to your lift arms instead of using the pin holes in the quick hitch and pins through the lift arm balls. Doing this you have eliminated any slight alignment play between impliment and 3 pt arms, thus making a very rigid engagement, which will put an increased strain on 3 pt. hitch arms and the implement pins. Personally I don't think I would have welded the Carter hitches on the lift arms as I like the little play that is utilized by the lift arm balls.

Its possible that thats how its done.(welded) They offer either weld on or the ones with the bracket..I agree with the loss of ''play'' but on the plus side you don't loose the length..

oldboyscout · Oct 26, 2011

yes i wanted ones that didn't extend the length the arms because I don't have a lot of lift capacity to begin with and I didn't want to lose any of it.
the weld-on vs the pin on was a toss up but I thought the weld on would be cleaner with fewer clearance issues.

Baby Grand · Oct 26, 2011

oldboyscout said:
yes i wanted ones that didn't extend the length the arms because I don't have a lot of lift capacity to begin with and I didn't want to lose any of it.
the weld-on vs the pin on was a toss up but I thought the weld on would be cleaner with fewer clearance issues.

Just noticed the "folding entrenching tool" in your sig ? ! ?
Do you mean by that a backhoe, or one of those little green folding shovels I always lashed to my pack when I was a 'scout? Do they still let them use those, or have they been litigated out of the quartermaster's inventory?

kthompson · Oct 26, 2011

oldboyscout said:
<You may have looked at and done this but you probably have two holes in the arms for the lift linkage and is you use the holes nearest the top of the arms get the lift point where it was. >

yes the lift linkage has 2 adjustments but it's normally on the lower one. If I use the upper will it get worse?

another question then, what are those adjustments for?

If this was a question from my post your manual will cover this. But one set of holes will give you less lift but more lift capacity. That I think is the rear holes holes. Best I can say it lift and measure and then switch and measure for difference.

SPYDERLK · Oct 26, 2011

oldboyscout said:
no I didn't move the top link to the lower mounting point, but moving the eyes of the lift arms up looks like I essentially did the same thing. i.e. the distance between the top link and lift arms is shorter now.
I don't understand why using the lower top link mount is discouraged.

On the lift arms imagine a line from your new "eyes" to the ball mounting point on the tractor. This is your new lift arm. Lengthening your lift links to bring the new eyes/new arms to their original position will cause virtually identical characteristics to the original. Forces consolidated in the composite lift arm/QA will be different but not felt much by tractor hydraulics owing to the small change in angle. The sweet/ strong spot in your lift range will change a little. Loss of the outer ball articulation will cause some binding if you tilt implement. Moving your top link point will be the same as if the lower links are stock. --Lower link point reduces lift capacity some but kicks the implement tail up quickly as you raise.
larry