Top link extender help - finding one like the included photo

[ruffdog]

another thread.....

Pat's Easy Change - Extended Top Link for Pats EZchange

 

[Lineman North Florida]

another thread.....

Pat's Easy Change - Extended Top Link for Pats EZchange

That's why I missed it, I haven't seen or read the other thread.

 

[LouNY]

Doesn't even need to be welded. Couple of pieces of flat stock the appropriate width 4" or 6 " with holes drilled say at least 4 on the tractor side for a pair of pins with spacers and the normal set of 3 (6) on the implement side

 

[scootr]

The cylinder rod can be extended also. A welding shop or capable welder can add length to the rod.

 

[bcp]

Easy top link extension

I have installed Pat's easy change on my tractor and love the ease of use but a major problem is that the top link needs to be extended to make up for the added lift arm length. This is not a new problem, a simple search shows many others with the same concern. For some purchasing a longer top...

www.tractorbynet.com

Bruce

 

[beowulf]

He's invested in his aftermarket *hydraulic top link already.
I haven't run across an "extension" like you've pictured, but it would be very simple to fabricate if you weld.
*I think
Maybe altering the attachment could be a non welding solution.

The hydraulic top link was provided when I first bought the tractor and requested topntilt with it. I knew very little then and did not think about the link of the top link and how that could affect things.

 

[beowulf]

Thanks to everyone for reading. My top link is hydraulic - came with the tractor when I ordered it with TnTilt. The implements used mostly are box blade, and grader blade, and rarely the middle buster, and now - a new pto chipper, The chipper is the most difficult to get hooked to the top link as it weighs 710 lbs (Very hard to tip it forward enough to connect but doable) but they all require some effort or creative approaches at times - but the hook ups are all doable. As I have been thinking about this, I may have another solution - given that I am not changing things out that much, and once hooked up there are no issues with operating. What I can do for the chipper is to have a 2 x4 or 4x4 situated so the back of the implements can be sat down on that which would tip the front top link connection forward. They could be easily unhooked and ready to be hooked up again later. Given that I am typically only 1-2 or 3" short, this should work and would resolve the issue for me - as I said, I am not switching out implements that much. The box blade is left on until I need to use something different. I also have a post hole digger and a 5 foot rotary mower but will be selling both of those.

 

[beowulf]

Doesn't even need to be welded. Couple of pieces of flat stock the appropriate width 4" or 6 " with holes drilled say at least 4 on the tractor side for a pair of pins with spacers and the normal set of 3 (6) on the implement side

I like this idea. I can make a template for the size and hole locations out of some scap wood and take it to a machine shop. Thanks! In the meantime I will try my 'blocking to tilt' idea - just posted.

 

[Gator6x4]

Look at this. I would advise putting the device on the implement end of the top link and stay away from adding a stress factor to the top link connector location on the tractor.

Amazon.com

 

[beowulf]

Look at this. I would advise putting the device on the implement end of the top link and stay away from adding a stress factor to the top link connector location on the tractor.

Amazon.com

Gator, I looked at those - and still looking. What I could not resolve for myself yet was how that would work out without a fixed connection point. What I mean is, I am wondering if it would not put the force up or down rather than straight out as it would if the top link implement hook up was directly connected to a pin. I mean, I see two swivel points with that item and not sure how that would work out as the uses (images) I have seen accompanying these kinds of extenders seem to be otherwise. Not sure. Thanks for the input. I will keep thinking about these. Maybe there would be a way to make that device more 'fixed' - i.e., less maneuverable up and down.