Pat's Easy Change trouble

[m5guy]

I took my Pats off. Always had to mess with them, plus they added enough length, that my hydraulic top link wasn't long enough to reach certain implements. A waste of a couple hundred bucks in my opinion. Just buy a full QUIK hitch and save the headache. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Number15]

IIRC my Pat's had shims that needed to be installed. Did you have shims with yours?

 

[CobyRupert]

Been there, done that.

Pat’s eliminates the swivel ball that is part of your lift arm. As your 3 point hitch raises or lowers, the Pat’s hitch, that may be at a right angle to the implement’s pin at a one height, needs to swivel on the lift arm. However, if you tightened down the side adjustment bolts on the Pats, this puts tremendous force on them as they try to resist this movement.
Basically, when the bolts are tight, the function of the swivel ball is eliminated and you’re trying to compensate for the “swivel” by having the attachment’s pin swivel in the Pat’s hook (if that makes sense). This is why the bolts bend.

IMHO - THERE’S NO NEED TO TIGHTEN DOWN THE BOLTS to prevent sideways “swivel” of the Pat’s in the lift arm ball. Let the Pat’s hitch move side to side in the lift arm’s swivel ball so that it can stay perpendicular to the attachment’s lift pins over the full lift range.
Also, use the strongest grade bolt instead of the ones supplied by Pat’s. Although, they may be suppling a heavier grade than previously.

 

[Number15]

Been there, done that.

Pat’s eliminates the swivel ball that is part of your lift arm. As your 3 point hitch raises or lowers, the Pat’s hitch, that may be at a right angle to the implement’s pin at a one height, needs to swivel on the lift arm. However, if you tightened down the side adjustment bolts on the Pats, this puts tremendous force on them as they try to resist this movement.
Basically, when the bolts are tight, the function of the swivel ball is eliminated and you’re trying to compensate for the “swivel” by having the attachment’s pin swivel in the Pat’s hook (if that makes sense). This is why the bolts bend.

IMHO - THERE’S NO NEED TO TIGHTEN DOWN THE BOLTS to prevent sideways “swivel” of the Pat’s in the lift arm ball. Let the Pat’s hitch move side to side in the lift arm’s swivel ball so that it can stay perpendicular to the attachment’s lift pins over the full lift range.
Also, use the strongest grade bolt instead of the ones supplied by Pat’s. Although, they may be suppling a heavier grade than previously.

Yeah mine came with grade 8 bolts. I think they got the message

 

[jfsawatzky]

I just connected my pats this past weekend and changed implements a couple times. It took me a while to figure out that the pats on one arm remains at 12:00, but the other arm can rotate to about 1:00 causing it to bind. I only noticed this after readjusting pats, so I’m not certain if that will resolve my issues… maybe it will help with yours.

 

[ripHST]

Been there, done that.

Pat’s eliminates the swivel ball that is part of your lift arm. As your 3 point hitch raises or lowers, the Pat’s hitch, that may be at a right angle to the implement’s pin at a one height, needs to swivel on the lift arm. However, if you tightened down the side adjustment bolts on the Pats, this puts tremendous force on them as they try to resist this movement.
Basically, when the bolts are tight, the function of the swivel ball is eliminated and you’re trying to compensate for the “swivel” by having the attachment’s pin swivel in the Pat’s hook (if that makes sense). This is why the bolts bend.

IMHO - THERE’S NO NEED TO TIGHTEN DOWN THE BOLTS to prevent sideways “swivel” of the Pat’s in the lift arm ball. Let the Pat’s hitch move side to side in the lift arm’s swivel ball so that it can stay perpendicular to the attachment’s lift pins over the full lift range.
Also, use the strongest grade bolt instead of the ones supplied by Pat’s. Although, they may be suppling a heavier grade than previously.

Thanks for the insight. I think this is my next step. Let it float and see if it’ll work. I hate the idea of not using it as designed, but maybe I’m being too literal with the instructions. I’ve been known to do that.

 

[3gunr]

I had the jamb bolts all the way out and still couldn't get them to engage. granted, that was with the stabilizer bar in place. I'll fiddle with it, and maybe lose the stabilizer bar and see if I can make it work.

The stabilizer bar is not worth the trouble , you really dont need it , i switch between 5 implements all the time . My brush cutter is the only one i have to widen the lift arms for,

 

[3gunr]

I took my Pats off. Always had to mess with them, plus they added enough length, that my hydraulic top link wasn't long enough to reach certain implements. A waste of a couple hundred bucks in my opinion. Just buy a full QUIK hitch and save the headache. Just my opinion, of course.

I have had just the opposite experience , Bought a regular Qh took it back . Put my pats on 3 yrs ago and have not touched it since, When i am at my farm on weekends i switch from finsh mower to disk or tiller to spreader to brush hog to box blade , It takes only minutes, My tractor at home has standard hitch and i hate it , Takes me a half hr of pushing and banging to change an implement. Keep at it you will get it figured out.

 

[Woodstock Walt]

I bought a set of Pat's after hearing all of the praise that some members on here have for them. I took them off after a month of frustration and dissatisfaction. I can see how they might work well for some people, but they definitely didn't work well for me. I think it all depends on the geometry of your lower link system. They seem to work better on smaller tractors.

I had them on my previously owned Mahindra 4540, which had the rotating balls in the lower links for Cat I or II capabilities. I spent three hours grinding the lower link ends down so the Pat's system would fit on my link arms. Looking back, the Pat's Cat II system may have fit better, but I do not want Cat II attachment points as all of my implements are Cat I.

Even after all the grinding to make them fit, I could not get them to align straight with the implement pins. Not enough adjustment in the Pat's system for my application. They definitely did not save any time changing out implements, in my experience it took just as long if not longer. I was constantly having to adjust them and mess with them. Then once the implement was attached, the Pat's system allows for a ton of slop and free play in the attachment points.

Despite the arguable complexity of attaching implements, the tradition ball/pin lower link setup makes for a very tight connection once the implement is attached. The rattling and banging from the loose attachment points of the Pat's system while using my box blade was the final straw for me. I took them off and went back to attaching my implements the old school way, and never looked back. Waste of $200 for my application.

My new 5155 has telescoping lower links for easy implement attaching. Wow. Looking back I wish I had put a set of those on my 4540 instead. I prefer telescoping lower arms over the fixed length arm/Pat's combo for sure.

 

[Lineman North Florida]

I bought a set of Pat's after hearing all of the praise that some members on here have for them. I took them off after a month of frustration and dissatisfaction. I can see how they might work well for some people, but they definitely didn't work well for me. I think it all depends on the geometry of your lower link system. They seem to work better on smaller tractors.

I had them on my previously owned Mahindra 4540, which had the rotating balls in the lower links for Cat I or II capabilities. I spent three hours grinding the lower link ends down so the Pat's system would fit on my link arms. Looking back, the Pat's Cat II system may have fit better, but I do not want Cat II attachment points as all of my implements are Cat I.

Even after all the grinding to make them fit, I could not get them to align straight with the implement pins. Not enough adjustment in the Pat's system for my application. They definitely did not save any time changing out implements, in my experience it took just as long if not longer. I was constantly having to adjust them and mess with them. Then once the implement was attached, the Pat's system allows for a ton of slop and free play in the attachment points.

Despite the arguable complexity of attaching implements, the tradition ball/pin lower link setup makes for a very tight connection once the implement is attached. The rattling and banging from the loose attachment points while using my box blade was the final straw for me. I took them off and went back to attaching my implements the old school way, and never looked back. Waste of $200 for my application.

My new 5155 has telescoping lower links for easy implement attaching. Wow. Looking back I wish I had put a set of those on my 4540. I prefer telescoping lower arms over the fixed length arm/Pat's combo for sure.

This, Pat's qh to me are great for tractors without telescoping lift arms and my small tractor didn't have them and the Pat's system solved that problem, my big tractor does have telescoping lift arms and I wouldn't have a set on it at all.