Pat's Easy Change Pat's Easy Change System - Order Online!

[shortthrow50]

What are people doing if they have a hydraulic top link? It's my understanding, that this easy change system dramatically limits the top link extension

 

[texasjohn]

Facts are that Pats extends the lower arms a little bit, thus if you leave the top link the same length, an implement will no longer be level.

solution is to lengthen the top link to again level the implement.

Sometimes, the amount of additional length needed, just a few inches, exceeds what the existing top link can do.

solution is to obtain a different top link which is longer.

Or, to craft an extension to the existing top link...requires some metal cutting/welding perhaps, depending on how one designs the extension.

if you have a hydraulic top link (I do) then perhaps there is no problem, just extend it hydraulically. However, if the max extension is insufficient, then either craft an extender (I did) to the top link connection, or get a different hydraulic cylinder with more reach.

Net, many people are able to use their existing top link, lengthen it and just add PATS system. Others need to make an adjustment or obtain a longer top link...just depends.

 

[grove57]

On our 265 MF (1976) we were fine on top link and bush hog PTO. A 7' rotary mower comes with an extra long PTO. The added 4" of space between the tires and bushhog is awesome especially when hooking up PTO connector.

Does your 265 MF happen to have the pivoting ball-end setup? I have a MF 275 with the welded on, pivoting ball-end and am wondering if the added width of the arms would be too wide to accept the Pat's system. I've seen both height of arms and length of straight run at end of arms, but never thickness of arms at the ball end mentioned. Should go out to the barn now to measure but... Does anyone offhand know the thickness/width of opening of the Pat's system?? Thanks

 

[texasjohn]

Friends, if you have a question about if it will fit....just give Pat a call....hundreds of thread replies and everybody says they fit and Pat gives good service....he's sold a ton of these things, people are happy with them and happy with the service...just give him a call to find out if they fit. He knows for sure.

 

[grove57]

Thanks, texasjohn, I will!

Friends, if you have a question about if it will fit....just give Pat a call....hundreds of thread replies and everybody says they fit and Pat gives good service....he's sold a ton of these things, people are happy with them and happy with the service...just give him a call to find out if they fit. He knows for sure.

Thanks, texasjohn, I will!

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Does your 265 MF happen to have the pivoting ball-end setup? I have a MF 275 with the welded on, pivoting ball-end and am wondering if the added width of the arms would be too wide to accept the Pat's system. I've seen both height of arms and length of straight run at end of arms, but never thickness of arms at the ball end mentioned. Should go out to the barn now to measure but... Does anyone offhand know the thickness/width of opening of the Pat's system?? Thanks

grove57 not at the 265 currently but I think it just has stock straight ends?

 

[LMan1967]

Just ordered a set for my MF......looking forward to it.

 

[LMan1967]

Got it in on Friday....easy to install, works well! :thumbsup:

 

[rbtjr]

I have used the Alexander Co Delta Hook quick-hitch system for years now. Here is a link to their web site: Alexander Equipment - Founder of the Delta Hook Rapid 3 Point Hitch System
This system has worked well for me, although it was pretty expensive to buy the females for the several implements I use. Also, I bent several of the females doing heavy-duty box scraping, when the extreme outside end of the box scrape got caught on something really sturdy and I didn't react quickly enough. Anyway, I am trying to make our tractor setup family friendly so that it is easy for several family members to use. To that end, we just traded in our Kubota M5400 for a Kubota L3800 HST. That gets me to my question: The Delta Hook system, while miles better than hooking up the 3PH without something like the Delta Hook, has some drawbacks. It can in some instances be awkward to work with without damaging the PTO-implement power shaft. The units are heavy for some operators to put on or take off by themselves. Etc. I am thinking about trying Pat' ECS with a hydraulic top link. Does anyone have any feedback or suggestions about that? Thanks.

 

[rbtjr]

I have used the Alexander Co Delta Hook quick-hitch system for years now. Here is a link to their web site: Alexander Equipment - Founder of the Delta Hook Rapid 3 Point Hitch System
This system has worked well for me, although it was pretty expensive to buy the females for the several implements I use. Also, I bent several of the females doing heavy-duty box scraping, when the extreme outside end of the box scrape got caught on something really sturdy and I didn't react quickly enough. Anyway, I am trying to make our tractor setup family friendly so that it is easy for several family members to use. To that end, we just traded in our Kubota M5400 for a Kubota L3800 HST. That gets me to my question: The Delta Hook system, while miles better than hooking up the 3PH without something like the Delta Hook, has some drawbacks. It can in some instances be awkward to work with without damaging the PTO-implement power shaft. The units are heavy for some operators to put on or take off by themselves. Etc. I am thinking about trying Pat' ECS with a hydraulic top link. Does anyone have any feedback or suggestions about that? Thanks.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

I thought about adding a hydraulic top link to use along with Pat's ECS but my son talked me out of it. In our case it would just be harder to hook up the top link due to extra weight and hoses. He said it would just be money wasted since we do not need to adjust the top link except when we first hitch to another piece of equipment.

We use the Cat 2 ECS system on the 265 MF (60 HP?) with a 1000 pound 8' Bushhog Brand box blade and a super heavy duty 7' bush hog type mower and so far even with some abuse the Pat's system has held up well and reduces accident risks greatly when changing implements.

 

[rbtjr]

I thought about adding a hydraulic top link to use along with Pat's ECS but my son talked me out of it. In our case it would just be harder to hook up the top link due to extra weight and hoses. He said it would just be money wasted since we do not need to adjust the top link except when we first hitch to another piece of equipment.

We use the Cat 2 ECS system on the 265 MF (60 HP?) with a 1000 pound 8' Bushhog Brand box blade and a super heavy duty 7' bush hog type mower and so far even with some abuse the Pat's system has held up well and reduces accident risks greatly when changing implements.

Thanks. Good point about the hydraulic top link. I was thinking about it because of the need, sometimes, to trim the implement by adjusting the top link. For example, we are taking delivery today of a sickle mower. The manual refers to adjusting the plane of the mower bar by adjusting the top link. Other examples are the rotary mower, box scrape with scarifiers and the pulverizer. So as part of my project to make our setup more user friendly I was thinking of making it easier to trim implements like this from the tractor seat. But you make a good point about making it more difficult to fit the top link when you first hook up due to its weight and the hoses. I'll have to think about that.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Our Ford sickle mower came with its own top link that only had to be adjusted once for the style of tractor that it was used with. It had arm clamps that we put in place by hand tighting then we used the lift to put in the top link pin THEN we torqued the arm clamps.

I think a hydraulic top link has its place. It seems like on a 3PH set of forks or materials bucket the extra lifting range would be nice that a hydraulic top link offers if one already had a spare remote.

 

[rbtjr]

Today we got a BEFCO sickle mower. The dealer's rep and I put it on our L3800 using our Delta Hook QH. It was a struggle. Then after I did some mowing and wanted to take off the mower, I couldn't get the QH to release, and I ended up having to take the female QH unit off of the mower, which required me to lift up the mower to relieve some weight pressure. I finally got the tractor and the mower separated with the help of a crowbar to realign the Delta Hook pairs. This experience convinced me that our existing QH system won't work with the sickle mower. The quandry now is what to do--adopt an entirely new QH system, take off the QH system units when I use the sickle mower and hook it up the old way without QH help, or buy a new QH system for use primarily with the sickle mower, which means taking off the QH system used with other implements so I can put on the new system for use with the sickle mower. I am leaning toward an entirely new system, probably Pat's system. Any feedback, arguments to the contrary, etc., would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

We have a mix match of equipment and 1976 tractor so when I learned about Pat's system it was a no-brainer.

 

[rbtjr]

Our Ford sickle mower came with its own top link that only had to be adjusted once for the style of tractor that it was used with. It had arm clamps that we put in place by hand tighting then we used the lift to put in the top link pin THEN we torqued the arm clamps.

I think a hydraulic top link has its place. It seems like on a 3PH set of forks or materials bucket the extra lifting range would be nice that a hydraulic top link offers if one already had a spare remote.

Gail, you triggered a thought: I think I'll try Pat's system for general use and buy a separate top link to use for the sickle mower. We can either adjust it for the proper mowing-blade plane once, and leave it there, or we can mark the proper length adjustment on the top link, change it as we need to for the hook-up, and then adjust it back to the previously marked correct operating position. Thanks.

 

[roadhawk]

I have the same question about the set screws. I understand they are used to align the PEC plumb to the lift arms. However, when using implements with pins of varying widths, the PEC will sit square to some pins and be slightly off with others.

In other words, if my arms are set 26'' apart and I plumb the PEC and tighten the set screws, the PEC will be square to the pin on any implement with pins 26'' apart. When I move to another implement with pins 21" apart, the PEC is no longer square to the pins and the hooks will sit at a slight angle to the pins.

What is the advantage of using the set screws and tightening the PEC to the arms? Why not use the main pin through the ball in the lift arm and the shim and leave the set screws loose (or off) and allow the PEC to move left or right on the arm. By doing this, the PEC can self align to the pins on the implement being used.... this is no different then the ball in the arm rotating. What am i missing about the use of the set screws? Thanks

I got mine installed today, backed up to the bushhog that was not on level ground and that has always been a PITA to hook up and wow was that easy! After using that I dropped the hog off (and wow that was easy except for the fire ants I didn't see!) and backed up to the box blade.

Well, I've got to move the arm width now (need to make some spreader bars since I didn't order one, and need some more bent washers) and I agree with this quoted observation. I'm looking at it and am wondering the same thing- why do I need all of the rigidity and angle changing at different widths and why not just let it float on the ball in the arm? That would also allow me to adjust my box blade angle further when angled to do a trench.

I see that it's part of the patented difference between some other quick hitches, but...pros and cons?

 

[Gale Hawkins]

I like the regidity because that is the way our OEM ends are. With them flopping the flop will just get worse as they wear at the contacting points. I like the control of the arms lifting when I move the control.

 

[bob19]

I have a Kubota B2910 and a Woods back blade. I ordered the Pat's Easy Change from Tractor By Net. Will it be difficult to install and will it work with my rear blade>

 

[rbtjr]

I have a Kubota B2910 and a Woods back blade. I ordered the Pat's Easy Change from Tractor By Net. Will it be difficult to install and will it work with my rear blade>

Based on my experience, it will not be difficult to install. I bet that you already have it on by now. The only problem I encountered was that the spacers provided to align the quick hitch with the tractor 3PH arms did not work exactly right. One was a little thin and the other was a little thick. I ended up choosing the spacer (which was the thinner spacer) that came the closest to making the quick hitch be level at about the height of the lift pins on most of my attachments. I have learned that it definitly helps to use the stabilizer bar that I bought as an option with the quick hitch. You could make your own. I use the stabilizer bar to set the 3PH arms at the correct width for the particular attachment, and then I remove the stabilizer bar. Since the lift pins are not the same width on all of my attachments, I also have made some little wood measuring sticks I use to tell me how far apart to set the ends of the stabilizer bar for each attachment. Most of the attachments are the same width between the lift pins--28" as I recall. Some are not.

As to using Pat's system with the rear blade, I think it will work fine if you have the blade standing up. I intend to make a dolly for my scrape blade, and I intend to build the dolly so that the blade is standing up just as if it were attached to the tractor.

One final note is that I experienced the same thing I had read about on TBN with my top link being too short on some attachments due to Pat's easy-change system moving the connection point about 4" farther back. Yesterday I bought at Tractor Supply Company a longer top link that should fix this problem. I don't yet know if the PTO drive shaft is long enough on every PTO-driven attachment after the attachment is moved back this 4".