If I were in the hydraulic business and couldn't come up with a better coupling than the standard quick coupling I would have to shoot myself. I'm sick and tired of dealing with these fittings. Googling, I found European units with a lever handle that actually are quick couplings with a single acting lever for 4-6 or more fittings. Today I removed the snowblower and installed the bucket on my JD 2720. This is not an old tractor,(2012) and today with the attachments would cost 35k. The process sucks just as much as I remember from last year. The loader has been in heated storage on a smooth concrete floor for 7 months. Why do I have to use a wad of paper towels and shove with all my might against the seating platform to release the pressure to get these fittings so that they will engage and attach? Fluid all over my hands, all over the floor, all over my tractor. My tractor has 225hrs on the hobbs and I've got a trash can cover on the floor under my hydraulic fittings so that I don't get fluid all over my new floor from leaking fittings as my tractor spends most of its time just sitting there looking pretty and leaking. THIS SYSTEM ABSOLUTELY SUCKS!!!!! There is no excuse for this. My tractor has leaked since about 50hrs. It's time for all respectable manufacturers to find a solution.
Loader WHAT IS QUICK ABOUT QUICK COUPLINGS?
- Thread starter Talisker
- Start date
- Views: 10315
CalG
Super Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2011
- Messages
- 9,212
- Location
- vermont
- Tractor
- Hurlimann 435, Fordson E27n, Bolens HT-23, Kubota B7200, Kubota B2601
heck JIC 37 degree flairs only need two wrenches to make or break any connection. Takes a minute or two.
You are right. "quick couplers" are just unwanted complication.
Oh! I'm waiting for your "better idea". Be prepared to defend your patent.
You are right. "quick couplers" are just unwanted complication.
Oh! I'm waiting for your "better idea". Be prepared to defend your patent.
rustyshakelford
Veteran Member
Before you unhook do you turn your tractor off and cycle the controls in all directions for a few seconds. Then when you’re ready to hook back up do the same? I don’t ever have issues with mine and that includes front and two remotes in the rear that get used frequently
Brett
Brett
Rustyshakelford, I will try that next time and hope it will help but ultimately, imagine just lining up the four fittings and swinging a lever to engage. Done! No matter if I do as you suggest, pray to the Gods, watch the Zodiac, roll three snake eyes, this process should not require this. Old, antiquated fittings that require a special touch, is 1970, not 2018. That's nearly 50yrs. I will never believe this system to be adequate. Like I stated in my original post, it sucks.
DK35vince
Super Member
Same here.
I connect/disconnect my loader, backhoe and rear remotes often and very rarely have an issue.
It's because you do it often that you have no problem. It's when things sit and relax for months that it becomes difficult. My tractor is a 2012 with 225hrs. It doesn't see a lot of use. Today was the first time it was started since our last snowstorm that required snow blowing. That was in March. The bucket was removed in November and attached today, June 10th.
npalen
Elite Member
http://www.nimco-controls.com/virtupload/content/93/Front_end_loader_brochure_webb.pdf
Page 38 shows shows some "quick couplers" with multiple ports. Most of the modern combine headers use a similar type system for detaching the header from the combine for transport.
Your right, most of the "off the shelf" pioneer type couplers can be a real messy pain. Some good suggestions in the above posts for easing the pain. I sometimes relieve pressure in a hose by pressing the male tip down in a can or some such receptable to catch the "splurt" of fluid. The hose can build up pressure even when disconnected due to temperature change.
Page 38 shows shows some "quick couplers" with multiple ports. Most of the modern combine headers use a similar type system for detaching the header from the combine for transport.
Your right, most of the "off the shelf" pioneer type couplers can be a real messy pain. Some good suggestions in the above posts for easing the pain. I sometimes relieve pressure in a hose by pressing the male tip down in a can or some such receptable to catch the "splurt" of fluid. The hose can build up pressure even when disconnected due to temperature change.
Hey, I like that system! That fast connect beats the **** out of quick connect! It looks like the European units I've seen. "Splurting the fluid"? Sounds a bit like, "priming the pump". I doubt there are many below the age of 40 who have heard either term. Hence, antiquated. A unit like the one you referenced on page 38 should be standard equipment on any new tractor today, preferably universal fit and across all brands.
4570Man
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2015
- Messages
- 19,039
- Location
- Crossville, TN
- Tractor
- Kubota M59, Kubota L3800, Grasshopper 428D, Topkick dump truck, 3500 dump truck, 10 ton trailer, more lighter trailers.
If you bleed the system properly and don’t have heat expansion to deal with there’s virtually no problems. And my CTL has a self bleeding value so a slightly better system does exist.
Self bleeding valve? Does my loader have this? I don't think so but maybe I'm missing something? After 7 months and from highs of 40 degrees to today's 80, heat expansion is going to be an issue I think. Your "slightly" better, is probably a correct assumption. A single lever to snap four fittings in place, would have it all over individual struggles with 4 separate fittings. I don't build tractors but even I know this. Why doesn't JD?
Now that I have had time to think about it, I always cycle the control in all directions while attaching and un-attaching equipment with the tractor off. I do that because it does help some but doesn't solve the problem. This has happened far too many times now to be just something I'm doing wrong. At least, I think.
Wagtail
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 12,930
- Location
- St Helens, Tasmania, Australia
- Tractor
- JD 4105 / JD Z355E (48" deck)
X3.
And I'm not too proud to admit that, when hooking up my 4in1 bucket, I forgot to include cycling the 3rd function button control. Cursed a blue streak until I 'figured' that out. Now they just slide in once I've pushed the locking collar back.
No it should not be! If your unable to deal with a simple cost effective means then You should pay extra to have that Much more expensive set up installed to your tractor and not expect the rest of us who have never had a problem for more than the 50 years mentioned to be forced to pay extra so you can have it easy!
What's the, "cost effective means" solution? If I knew of one I would gladly have paid it. I saw none and bought exactly what I wanted when new, caring little toward cost. Do you mean, swapping factory for aftermarket? I know of no factory direct option that would have allowed an easy solution. That system is not something from JD, even as an option. Again, maybe I'm missing something?
Yes you should buy aftermarket and leave the simple cost effective factory quick disconnects alone. I have no need to have anymore cost added to my tractors. I am an old man with arthritis and still have no problems with them.
Wagtail
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 12,930
- Location
- St Helens, Tasmania, Australia
- Tractor
- JD 4105 / JD Z355E (48" deck)
It's the method of a) lower the implement to the ground, b) shut the tractor engine off, c) cycle the joystick & 3rd function to relieve the hydraulic pressure in the lines, d) easily connect the hydraulic couplings without having to curse to High Heaven, and e) start your tractor back up.
It's 'cost effective' because that's what already on tractors.
TheMan419
Veteran Member
If the other methods were cheaper they would already be on a tractor. The reason they are not is they must be more expensive AND there is not enough of an out cry of people wanting an easier solution. If there was the manufacturer would either (a) make it standard equipment or (b) offer it as an option.
The manufacturer is in business to make money. So they will offer as options things that make them money.
If they did not offer it as an option and there was demand for it the dealer would offer to add it as an extra (for a cost of course).
The manufacturer is in business to make money. So they will offer as options things that make them money.
If they did not offer it as an option and there was demand for it the dealer would offer to add it as an extra (for a cost of course).
Silvic
Gold Member
As has been said. All the things you want are available. Look in the catalogs.
They are not put on as they cost a LOT MORE than the standard QD whether FF or AG style. I find my FF 1 inch connectors at well north of $100 and even the 3/4" are slightly north of $100 to be steep enough. That is per coupler or nipple. $250 to $350 for a set. When one breaks I replace it if one broke on a gang style it would be several thousand instead of much less and you would be throwing away several good parts with the one broken one in the gang setup. As was said what we have on most equipment is there because it is cost effective for the majority of folks that use the equipment and who do not have or chose not to spend the money on the fancy stuff. Most folks won't use FF as they are a good bit more than AG style, there is no way they will pay for the gang stype connectors you describe.
Yes the smaller size that is found on a SCUT are much less expensive as you can find an AG 1/4" for less than $20 a nipple/coupler. FF 1/4" are around $30 depending upon manufacturer.
They are not put on as they cost a LOT MORE than the standard QD whether FF or AG style. I find my FF 1 inch connectors at well north of $100 and even the 3/4" are slightly north of $100 to be steep enough. That is per coupler or nipple. $250 to $350 for a set. When one breaks I replace it if one broke on a gang style it would be several thousand instead of much less and you would be throwing away several good parts with the one broken one in the gang setup. As was said what we have on most equipment is there because it is cost effective for the majority of folks that use the equipment and who do not have or chose not to spend the money on the fancy stuff. Most folks won't use FF as they are a good bit more than AG style, there is no way they will pay for the gang stype connectors you describe.
Yes the smaller size that is found on a SCUT are much less expensive as you can find an AG 1/4" for less than $20 a nipple/coupler. FF 1/4" are around $30 depending upon manufacturer.
As I've already stated, I DO ALL THOSE THINGS!!!!
A. Do you still roll the windows up in your new truck because it's cost effective?
B. Did you buy your tractor from Northern Tool?
What do you think? I don't lower my implement to the ground and complain because I can't get the disconnects apart?
Doing as you suggest, is mandatory to removing any implement and I've never stated that I have a problem disconnecting lines.
I am specifically talking about "re-attaching" my loader after it has sat on a solid, flat, concrete floor for 7 months. My tractor is not the problem. It is the implement lines that have built up pressure from relaxing over time. If the lines are reattached in a week, there is no problem. Maybe the problem lies in the JD loader having no direct leg that removes pressure from the cylinders? If other people are not having this problem, it does not mean I'm fighting to make your tractor purchase more expensive and there is no reason to go that direction in your panic for self preservation. From the quick research I've done on the lever acting fast connects, they are impossible to find pricing on, impossible to find at standard locations and seem non-existent. It is likely also nearly impossible to find a dealer who would do the work without custom fabrication. Currently this is no solution at all and certainly not the same as telling your dealer to add power windows to the list of factory options.
Maybe I should change this thread to, "Anyone else having problems reattaching their JD loaders after sitting for long periods of time"?
Maybe a short length of 2X4 is the only expense I would have to fix this problem.
I think you are likely right Silvic. I'm guessing they are much more expensive than standard and that's why I can't find pricing or sellers. I'm guessing if pressure built up in an implement with 1in connectors in the way my loader does, that's got to be a real bear to release! At least my system is small.
Here are some similar links:
