Pats Easy Change with MF extending lower links-does it fit?

[Gary Fowler]

Pretty harsh for a Sunday. A smiley icon at the end might have been appropriate.

Anyway, often the implement is not level with the tractor. If you don't have a T&T then the Pat's will hook up one side and then a little more lift will hook the other side. Extendable arms do not have this feature and will lead to wrangling with the vertical lift arms until things are lined up.

The lower arms have to be spread wide enough to go over the lift pins. That means there will be slop in the implement until the check system is tightened (for an implement that is wanted tight). With Pat's that adjustment is already made from the last time.

If your last implement was tight then the check system has to be loosened to get the lower arms disconnected from the pins. With Pat's a lever is lifted and the arms lowered to clear underneath.

The balls are often hard to slide on the pins and need lubed. Another trip to the barn for WD-40. Not so with the Pat's.

The lower arms can be hooked up from the seat with no further effort. Yes, the top link has to be hooked up from the ground.

Is this all worth $200? It is an opinion. An opinion that should be made after actually using the Pat's system. Of course, then it is too late because the commitment has been made. Some extenuating factors include age, disabilities, back condition, patience, ADD, ADHD, and there are probably others.

Sorry if my comment hit to close to home, but I generally tell it like it is.
While all of your what ifs have merit for many tractors and new owners, there is nothing there than cant be worked with the existing equipment if you have telescoping lift arms. You don't need TNT to level the lift arms, IF you are unlevel, hook up the left side first then use the adjustable linkage on the right to align the other side.
I Never had a ball that was seized but I guess lack of use and lubrication can create some issues. A little light oil on the ball occasionally fixes that problem. Telescoping side stabilizer linkage (check linkage or what ever your personal terminology is) would solve the problem of adjusting the linkage to get the ball off and these are available for about the price of the Pats. I think Ken (Kens bolt on bucket hooks) makes them for all tractors. Those are worth any money spent versus turnbuckles and chains.
If your last implement was narrower than the one you are hooking to, Pats isn't going to hook up without adjusting the linkage so telescoping stabilizer links to me would be a better use of ones money, just pull the pins and hook up the lift arms then drop the pin back in for the right width.

 

[Gary Fowler]

Right, so basically you can't answer the question. Thanks.

The issue with extendable links is unlevel implements and disconnection. With pats, it is a lever. With extendable links, you have them in a bind and they don't extend until you basically remove the loading.

You back up, and lift up. No extendable link will ever be "that" simple or convenient on hookup, and that leaves aside the issue of unhooking. I'm just looking for someone who knows the answer -- I have no interest in weld-on modifications.

I didn't suggest welding on anything. It is never going to be as simple as back up and hook up even with Pats. You still have to have the lift arms exactly the right width to fit on the pins. I had them on one tractor and they were a bit easier than not having them, but they aren't just back up and lift simple as you stated.

 

[gwdixon]

Sorry if my comment hit to close to home, but I generally tell it like it is.

Yeah, me too. However, there is a line between fact and opinion. Recognizing that difference is essential to the integrity of a statement.

"Like it is" refers to facts.

 

[ovrszd]

I had Pat's on my L4400, no extendable lower arms. The plus side is obvious and handy if hooking to equipment that you can't move around by hand. The down side was the added length of the lower arm, which meant an extender on the top link or buying a longer top link (that's what I did). Another downside was two pieces of equipment I own would not accept the Pat's, so I would have to remove them to hook up. After a few times of that the Pat's found themselves laying on the shop bench. When I sold the tractor they weren't installed but I gave them to the buyer as I no longer had a use for them.

 

[nspec]

Gary:

Not to hijack a thread here, but Pat's really are the best thing since sliced bread. I have run equipment for the last 30 years. All kinds, from compacts to 250hp farm machines. I currently have a tractor with extendable lift arm extensions. With Pat's, I don't even have to get off the tractor to hook up or unhook the lift arms. All I've got to do is pop on the toplink and away I go. Don't knock it till you've tried it. Extendable arms are easy, and I more or less agree with your statement, but Pat's really are the cat's meow. Even with the extensions, there is still too much screwing around, even if you back up and are dialed in 100%.

 

[Gary Fowler]

Gary:

Not to hijack a thread here, but Pat's really are the best thing since sliced bread. I have run equipment for the last 30 years. All kinds, from compacts to 250hp farm machines. I currently have a tractor with extendable lift arm extensions. With Pat's, I don't even have to get off the tractor to hook up or unhook the lift arms. All I've got to do is pop on the toplink and away I go. Don't knock it till you've tried it. Extendable arms are easy, and I more or less agree with your statement, but Pat's really are the cat's meow. Even with the extensions, there is still too much screwing around, even if you back up and are dialed in 100%.

If you read the entire post, I noted that I had them on a Yanmar with fixed arms and they were OK for that but with lift arm extensions I don't see a need for them and I have about 20+ years on you for running tractors. I started driving the 8N when I was 5 years old in 1954, pulling a trailer to pull corn by hand. I also ran everything up to big articulating tractors and we never needed quick attach to hook up. When we got the first tractor (AC 190XT) with extension arms THAT was the "catsmeow" . We also had a rather easy to hook up D17 AC with the belly attachment and the snap lock on the lift arms. That was about the easiest ever for hooking up as the belly had a big bell front to guide the hook into it and it closed automatically. The lift arms had a dangling joint that you could hook up in just about any instance, but it was proprietary to the AC D model machines and you couldn't use the equipment with other tractors

 

[Cynical]

I had Pat's on my L4400, no extendable lower arms. The plus side is obvious and handy if hooking to equipment that you can't move around by hand. The down side was the added length of the lower arm, which meant an extender on the top link or buying a longer top link (that's what I did). Another downside was two pieces of equipment I own would not accept the Pat's, so I would have to remove them to hook up. After a few times of that the Pat's found themselves laying on the shop bench. When I sold the tractor they weren't installed but I gave them to the buyer as I no longer had a use for them.

Now this is an interesting twist, a least for me. This would be a deal breaker for me too. Mind sharing what the implements were, and is the problem unique to the implement or to an entire class of similar implements?

 

[gwdixon]

Now this is an interesting twist, a least for me. This would be a deal breaker for me too. Mind sharing what the implements were, and is the problem unique to the implement or to an entire class of similar implements?

I'd be interested, also.

The implement would have to be something that didn't have lift pins or clevis pins. I've never seen a 3PH implement without one or the other.

Maybe it is a Cat 1, 2, 3 problem. It is advisable to get Pat's in Cat 2 and sleeve the Cat 1 implements to fit. Then any Cat 2 attachments will fit as well. Sleeves are quite inexpensive and only two are needed (unless the top link is also Cat 2...one more is needed but a different size).

If you have a Cat 3 implement or tractor you are too big for TBN. :laughing:

 

[kneedeep]

I think the PATS replace the extendable but do not extend as the arms would. Looks kike the back of the PATS would fit tight against the arm.
My guess is the Pats will not extend the lift arm distance if used in extendables.

 

[gwdixon]

I think the PATS replace the extendable but do not extend as the arms would. Looks kike the back of the PATS would fit tight against the arm.
My guess is the Pats will not extend the lift arm distance if used in extendables.

You are correct on all points.