Best Hydraulic Quick Disconnects

ccoon520

Active member

Equipment
L2501 w/ FEL
Apr 15, 2019
360
106
43
IA
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.
it isn't 100 USD for a pair. It is 100 USD for a single fitting. I said since they were buying thousands of them that they would probably get a 25% price cut $800 per tractor to $600 per tractor. Maybe they could get 5-15% more depending on quantity and what the profit margin is on the fittings.

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.....
I get your point that it is a pet peeve that they leak and are sometimes hard to get back on because of pressure built due to temp changes. The point you are missing is that this isn't an engineering problem. Engineers have already provided a solution (which you don't like because threads but that is something entirely separate). The reason is cost vs added value or perceived added value.

Over the life of the tractor let's say 10,000 hours (3 years running the tractor 10 hours a day every single day of the year) and let's assume that an L2501 leaks half of the hydraulic fluid out of it's case every hydraulic change, only from the 4 loader fittings, and you keep it topped up daily. None from pushed out gaskets, none from leaking threads just the loader fittings. that would cost you 75 gallons of hydraulic fluid extra or 1500 dollars total in lost fluid which barely covers the cost of the fittings that you paid. For most people losing half their case of hydraulic fluid in between changes is unthinkable because they pull their loader off once every 25 hours or less. So it adds no value to change the fitting to something more expensive and robust and charge an extra thousand bucks on a tractor.

However, if they can up the size of the hydraulic pump and get 1% more lift capacity ~100lbs., or do some tweaking to the HST or Gear Transmission so it runs 1% more efficiently gaining more PTO horsepower or better gph fuel consumption. What is worked on is engineered to work across as many different use cases as possible to have the best overall results as possible with as little wasted material as possible.

Unlike your roof that is specific to your house and maybe another 10,000 like it across the US so it's solution is a custom fit. You have to have a group of people measuring, roll out tar paper, chalk line everything, cut shingles to fit, get specialty shingles for any awkward bends that need made, and on top of that it produces a bunch of scrap waste. The tractor is cookie cutter. Every tractor within its model look within 1% of another and perform within 5% of another.
 

NHSleddog

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
B2650
Dec 19, 2019
2,149
1,831
113
Southern, NH
You keep pointing to a one-off retail priced single item you found and basing all costs on that. Whatever. GIGO
 

ccoon520

Active member

Equipment
L2501 w/ FEL
Apr 15, 2019
360
106
43
IA
You keep pointing to a one-off retail priced single item you found and basing all costs on that. Whatever. GIGO
I'm basing it off of something I have experience with that works. You have not offered an alternative option only said that something that was designed 30 years ago is bad and the engineers the built it or keep using it are not doing their job to fix a problem that costs the average user a few hundred bucks over the life of the machine. GIGO
 

mikester

Well-known member

Equipment
M59 TLB
Oct 21, 2017
3,554
2,019
113
Canada
www.divergentstuff.ca
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.
Anecdotal - I use both - I've used FFC over the past 15 years and never replaced one due to leakage. Same goes for pioneers.

Pioneers piss out oil every time I disconnect them. If I don't have a rag handy to catch the oil it ends up on my tires and on my shop floor. The female ends are dirt magnets and hard to keep clean.

FFC's for me are less mess and they don't pop off when yanked. It's a win-win in my books, I don't mind spending a few extra bucks to get a better connector IMHO.
 

DustyRusty

Well-known member

Equipment
2020 BX23S, BX2822 Snowblower, Curtis Deluxe Cab,
Nov 8, 2015
6,237
4,816
113
North East CT
The inconvenience of a few drips of oil doesn't bother me. I have learned to live with the issue.