Best Hydraulic Quick Disconnects

NHSleddog

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
B2650
Dec 19, 2019
2,149
1,831
113
Southern, NH
I am really tired of leaking QC fittings and would like to standardize on all the ones I use. What is a good (current) brand and model of QC fittings that primarily won't leak, second would be ease of use. I plan to replace all of mine.

Any recommendations?
 

mcfarmall

Well-known member

Equipment
Kubota M5660SUHD, Farmall C
Sep 11, 2013
1,410
1,691
113
Kalamazoo, MI
Summit Hydraulics makes some good quality stuff but statistically they're all going to leak eventually after xxxx number of disconnect cycles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

B737

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
LX3310
Jun 9, 2019
2,024
2,200
113
USA
I keep reading that flat face couplers are all the rage. Less leaking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DustyRusty

Well-known member

Equipment
2020 BX23S, BX2822 Snowblower, Curtis Deluxe Cab,
Nov 8, 2015
6,237
4,816
113
North East CT
I just purchased some 1/4" flat faced by 1/4" NPT disconnect pairs from Amazon, for $40, and I like them better than the Parker disconnects that the BX23S originally came with. You just need to know exactly the connection of the hose that the disconnect is going to be mounted on.
The reason that I like them so much is that if you turn the collar on the female end, it will lock the two together, until you turn it and align it with the pin to release it.
 

Yooper

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
3901 LA525
May 31, 2015
1,529
529
113
NE Wisconsin
I have three different types of couplers on my stump grinder and it isn’t even a contest. The flat faced are easier to couple, easier to clean and leak hardly at all when uncoupling. Looked but there is no name on them
 

NHSleddog

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
B2650
Dec 19, 2019
2,149
1,831
113
Southern, NH
I like the flat-face but they are all but impossible to hook up with any pressure in them. I have them on my mini-x and I like that they don't leak much but hate that they can't be connected without loosening the fitting. On my excavator, I would call them anything but "quick" lol.

One of my pet peeves in life. You think we have it all figured out?

How did this engineering discussion go,

Boss, we need a new quick connection for all these implements.
Engineer: no problem, what is the spec.
Boss, Well they will be used on high pressure hydraulic lines. They shouldn't leak - EVER, and they should be quick.

......Months later

Engineer - what do you think of the new design?
Boss, For some reason I can't put them together.
Engineer - there must be pressure in the line, just go find some wrenches and loosen the fitting until you can put them together. Grab a rag to, you will get oil everywhere.
Boss, this was supposed to be for use on high pressure lines and quick, OK, I have the pressure gone, they still drip oil on my hands when connecting.
Engineer, you were serious when you said they shouldn't leak?

And it has been an issue for decades.

Next time you are sitting at a red light with not a soul in sight, remind yourself, we aren't even close to figuring it out yet.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

NHSleddog

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
B2650
Dec 19, 2019
2,149
1,831
113
Southern, NH
I job with my tractor and repetition is definitely an issue. I put them on and off daily. Between the auger, grapple and plow on the front and the box, rake, flail on the back, they get switched out often.

I will go with the flat-face. Now I just need to go buy the 90.00 clamp so I can easily connect them together.

One tip I can give that has helped me a lot is use male/female female/male on your tractor and implement ends, and always connect them together on the implement when not in use.

1. The fittings are protected and never get dirty.
2. They are sexed so up is always up, left is always left on the implement.
3. You can easily de-pressurize the implement when you go to hook it up.
 

ccoon520

Active member

Equipment
L2501 w/ FEL
Apr 15, 2019
360
106
43
IA
Engineer here. The issue isn't that there is not a solution. The issue is cost.

Here is what you are looking for, I have used the larger ones to hook up a grapple that had been sitting outside in the summer for a few days to a large excavator and threaded them completely together by hand. However, they are expensive.
 

NHSleddog

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
B2650
Dec 19, 2019
2,149
1,831
113
Southern, NH
Engineer here. The issue isn't that there is not a solution. The issue is cost.

Here is what you are looking for, I have used the larger ones to hook up a grapple that had been sitting outside in the summer for a few days to a large excavator and threaded them completely together by hand. However, they are expensive.
Hate the threads, great for lab work terrible in the dirt/dust.

I can see you taking immediate offense being an engineer, but it is an engineer that continues to screw it up (take offense with them). The cost should start at the baseline and the baseline 2 requirements.

1. QC (on a system that is routinely under pressure).
2. It should NEVER leak.

Only 2 requirements and 99% of the fittings out there don't accomplish them. Each and every one of them designed by an engineer (not you , but an engineer).
 

ccoon520

Active member

Equipment
L2501 w/ FEL
Apr 15, 2019
360
106
43
IA
Hate the threads, great for lab work terrible in the dirt/dust.

I can see you taking immediate offense being an engineer, but it is an engineer that continues to screw it up (take offense with them). The cost should start at the baseline and the baseline 2 requirements.

1. QC (on a system that is routinely under pressure).
2. It should NEVER leak.

Only 2 requirements and 99% of the fittings out there don't accomplish them. Each and every one of them designed by an engineer (not you , but an engineer).
That is what I just sent you. The threads are large and meant to work even with dirt and debris in them. These fittings were put onto excavators being used in the rail industry in some of the most remote places so they have to just work, which they do. If the threads get a little too gummed up they are large enough that a quick run with your fingernail, or a shot of compressed air and they will clear right out. If the pressure is too large for your hands to tighten them because it is a 105° day you can start the threads by hand and finish them with an adjustable wrench, no leak no mess.

Do they take 25% longer than the traditional type under perfect conditions? No, they probably take 50-100% longer. However, under nonideal conditions (which is what causes every headache with equipment) they just work and are much faster and cleaner than struggling with every other quick connect on the market just to figure out you cant do it by hand. So you have to go grab 2 wrenches, crack a line, make a mess, and then swear that it is a terrible design and wish there was something better. You might be able to find a fitting that uses a ball screw instead of threads but those are much more susceptible to getting gunk into the ball and then you have to clean out a tiny ball bearing cavity rather than using your fingernail, screwdriver, or compressed air to clean out some threads. To attach a hydraulic system with pressure you need leverage.

Easiest way to get leverage? Big stick. Most simple and compact way to get leverage is threads. Only other option you have is a Pressure Relief, which then adds complexity to the system because it is only a temporary PR. When the loader or implement is attached you want it to have pressure. So you need a way to have the PR only operate when the implement is disconnected. Now when that part fails and the loader just drags on the ground you are in a bigger pickle than having to crack a hydraulic line and deal with a small mess. The biggest note I am trying to get across here is with every boon there is a curse. Whether it be cost, ease of use, reliability. In general you can pick 2 and the third will fall short. You want it cheap and reliable? It will make a mess of hydraulic fluid on your floor. You want it reliable and easy to use? It will cost you. You want it cheap and easy to use? It will last a third as long.

Why is this? Reliable and cheap you are using a tried and true design that requires little time and effort to design around you just have to fit a couple of design parameters. Reliable and easy to use you have to design everything from the ground up for your specific system and test it for robustness and make alterations to fit this bill with materials and the design and you still might need to sacrifice a little bit of ease of use to get the desired results (like adding threads to get the leverage needed). Cheap and easy to use is made of cheap components and has only basic testing done ensure it meets the baseline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

NCL4701

Well-known member

Equipment
L4701, T2290, WC68, grapple, BB1572, Farmi W50R, Howes 500, 16kW IMD gen, WG24
Apr 27, 2020
2,793
4,235
113
Central Piedmont, NC
Engineer here. The issue isn't that there is not a solution. The issue is cost.

Here is what you are looking for, I have used the larger ones to hook up a grapple that had been sitting outside in the summer for a few days to a large excavator and threaded them completely together by hand. However, they are expensive.
When you said they’re expensive you weren’t kidding! I didn’t price the male. The 1/2” female satiated my curiosity.

F75BAC47-07A2-40B3-84E8-B98E0AEAA8C0.png
 

orange crusher

Well-known member

Equipment
BX 2680
Sep 30, 2017
356
480
63
ontario canada
I keep reading that flat face couplers are all the rage. Less leaking.

You keep reading BS. , they are 3 times the cost of standard couplers and their non-leaking life span is about 1/3 that of regular couplers. Got rid of the crap CF couplers on my kubota after the dealer did a warranty replacement twice in 6 months on them and threw up his hands in frustration. I replaced with regular Pioneer couplers and they haven't leaked in two years now, and they are rebuildable for for the cost of a few O rings when they do leak.
 

ccoon520

Active member

Equipment
L2501 w/ FEL
Apr 15, 2019
360
106
43
IA
When you said they’re expensive you weren’t kidding! I didn’t price the male. The 1/2” female satiated my curiosity.

View attachment 64326
Exactly. Now multiply that by 8 for just attaching a loader, 10 if you want 3rd function valve (not counting any implements using the 3rd function) and 14 if you want a single rear remote (not counting the cost of any implements running on the rear remote). It adds up very quickly on a piece of equipment under 100k an extra $800 cost to the manufacturer means at least a $1500 bump in price tag. Not enough value added by the different QC to market against a competitor. Now Kubota if they put it on all their equipment may be able to get the price of the couplings down to about $600 a tractor or about $1000 to the consumer due to volume but that still is a huge bump in price for something that will get used infrequently by most consumers and does not pose a safety or performance improvement. It is a nice to have that can be added aftermarket if desired.
 

Jchonline

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
Kubota L6060, KX040-4, M7060, RTV X1100C, M62 (sold)
Oct 28, 2018
1,389
602
113
Red Feather Lakes, CO
I like the flat-face but they are all but impossible to hook up with any pressure in them. I have them on my mini-x and I like that they don't leak much but hate that they can't be connected without loosening the fitting. On my excavator, I would call them anything but "quick" lol.

One of my pet peeves in life. You think we have it all figured out?

How did this engineering discussion go,

Boss, we need a new quick connection for all these implements.
Engineer: no problem, what is the spec.
Boss, Well they will be used on high pressure hydraulic lines. They shouldn't leak - EVER, and they should be quick.

......Months later

Engineer - what do you think of the new design?
Boss, For some reason I can't put them together.
Engineer - there must be pressure in the line, just go find some wrenches and loosen the fitting until you can put them together. Grab a rag to, you will get oil everywhere.
Boss, this was supposed to be for use on high pressure lines and quick, OK, I have the pressure gone, they still drip oil on my hands when connecting.
Engineer, you were serious when you said they shouldn't leak?

And it has been an issue for decades.

Next time you are sitting at a red light with not a soul in sight, remind yourself, we aren't even close to figuring it out yet.
I rigged a flat to pioneer 6 inch hose so when I disconnect the implement I can pop that flat face to pioneer on the fitting. No more pressure issues. Just pop the adapter hose off and hook it up. The bad news is if you have 5 implements like this it gets expensive...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

NHSleddog

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
B2650
Dec 19, 2019
2,149
1,831
113
Southern, NH
That is what I just sent you. The threads are large and meant to work even with dirt and debris in them. These fittings were put onto excavators being used in the rail industry in some of the most remote places so they have to just work, which they do. If the threads get a little too gummed up they are large enough that a quick run with your fingernail, or a shot of compressed air and they will clear right out. If the pressure is too large for your hands to tighten them because it is a 105° day you can start the threads by hand and finish them with an adjustable wrench, no leak no mess.

Do they take 25% longer than the traditional type under perfect conditions? No, they probably take 50-100% longer. However, under nonideal conditions (which is what causes every headache with equipment) they just work and are much faster and cleaner than struggling with every other quick connect on the market just to figure out you cant do it by hand. So you have to go grab 2 wrenches, crack a line, make a mess, and then swear that it is a terrible design and wish there was something better. You might be able to find a fitting that uses a ball screw instead of threads but those are much more susceptible to getting gunk into the ball and then you have to clean out a tiny ball bearing cavity rather than using your fingernail, screwdriver, or compressed air to clean out some threads. To attach a hydraulic system with pressure you need leverage.

Easiest way to get leverage? Big stick. Most simple and compact way to get leverage is threads. Only other option you have is a Pressure Relief, which then adds complexity to the system because it is only a temporary PR. When the loader or implement is attached you want it to have pressure. So you need a way to have the PR only operate when the implement is disconnected. Now when that part fails and the loader just drags on the ground you are in a bigger pickle than having to crack a hydraulic line and deal with a small mess. The biggest note I am trying to get across here is with every boon there is a curse. Whether it be cost, ease of use, reliability. In general you can pick 2 and the third will fall short. You want it cheap and reliable? It will make a mess of hydraulic fluid on your floor. You want it reliable and easy to use? It will cost you. You want it cheap and easy to use? It will last a third as long.

Why is this? Reliable and cheap you are using a tried and true design that requires little time and effort to design around you just have to fit a couple of design parameters. Reliable and easy to use you have to design everything from the ground up for your specific system and test it for robustness and make alterations to fit this bill with materials and the design and you still might need to sacrifice a little bit of ease of use to get the desired results (like adding threads to get the leverage needed). Cheap and easy to use is made of cheap components and has only basic testing done ensure it meets the baseline.
I get all of that, I think you are missing my point.

It is why I listed this as a pet peeve.

Baseline specification - Should be quick in the application. Shouldn't leak.


How about this.

Design me a roof for the house.

1. It shouldn't leak.
2. It shouldn't come apart.

And you have delivered a roof that leaks and gets blown off in a storm.
And when you inquire why it is leaking you are told it was a cost issue.

Again, baseline requirement.

If this was two weeks after the first QC came out to market this would be all well and good because we would not know any better. It has now been decades dealing with the same stupid issues.

Just a peeve.

We aren't even close.....
 

NHSleddog

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
B2650
Dec 19, 2019
2,149
1,831
113
Southern, NH
Exactly. Now multiply that by 8 for just attaching a loader, 10 if you want 3rd function valve (not counting any implements using the 3rd function) and 14 if you want a single rear remote (not counting the cost of any implements running on the rear remote). It adds up very quickly on a piece of equipment under 100k an extra $800 cost to the manufacturer means at least a $1500 bump in price tag. Not enough value added by the different QC to market against a competitor. Now Kubota if they put it on all their equipment may be able to get the price of the couplings down to about $600 a tractor or about $1000 to the consumer due to volume but that still is a huge bump in price for something that will get used infrequently by most consumers and does not pose a safety or performance improvement. It is a nice to have that can be added aftermarket if desired.
That is not even close to reality. A manufacturer works in thousands not ones and twos. At the end of the day this comes down to weight/materials/process. When the street price exceeds that, the Manufacturer will manufacture them. None of these are made out of gold.

At 100.00+ USD for a pail of SUDT2 it does not take long to pay the extra for fittings that don't leak and do not need to be removed/leaked off in order to operate. Lifetime of the equipment it would actually save money. I can't even imagine how many gallons of hydro leaks daily around the planet because of these decades old poorly designed products.
 

NCL4701

Well-known member

Equipment
L4701, T2290, WC68, grapple, BB1572, Farmi W50R, Howes 500, 16kW IMD gen, WG24
Apr 27, 2020
2,793
4,235
113
Central Piedmont, NC
Rio
I get all of that, I think you are missing my point.

It is why I listed this as a pet peeve.

Baseline specification - Should be quick in the application. Shouldn't leak.


How about this.

Design me a roof for the house.

1. It shouldn't leak.
2. It shouldn't come apart.

And you have delivered a roof that leaks and gets blown off in a storm.
And when you inquire why it is leaking you are told it was a cost issue.

Again, baseline requirement.

If this was two weeks after the first QC came out to market this would be all well and good because we would not know any better. It has now been decades dealing with the same stupid issues.

Just a peeve.

We aren't even close.....
Roofs are actually a decent comparison. Want a roof that doesn’t leak and doesn’t come apart? If you live in an area not prone to large hail, slate with copper flashing will last longer than the house under it and requires no maintenance. Live in an area prone to large hail? 24 gauge standing seam metal. Have to paint it every few decades but so long as it’s installed properly you keep a finish on it, it will outlast the rest of the house, albeit possibly with dents and dings from hail but no functional damage.

So why are the majority of the houses in the US roofed with fiberglass/asphalt shingles and aluminum flashing? Cost. Period. Compared to virtually any other roofing system for sloped roofs, one the the worst performing roof systems available but as expensive as fiberglass/asphalt shingles are, they’re still a relatively cheap roof.

I’m definitely not enamored with the Pioneer fittings on my tractor. Between the loader, third function, and three rear remotes as best I can count without looking at it, between tractor and attachments I have 30 (15 pair) I’d have to upgrade. So I have the same cost/benefit analysis required on most purchases. Yeah, the bother me some. Do they bother me $3300 (might could beat Amazon’s price but they list the male 1/2” at $110 also)? Honestly, no. If they did bother me $3300, or cost me $3300 in lost production I could recover with the upgrade, I’d swap them out.

Clearly if cheap, effective, reliable can all be achieved simultaneously that is ideal. Not always possible.