When I conducted a specs comparison between Makita’s XGT and 18V LXT cordless hammer drill and impact driver combo kit two years ago, I missed something.
In that post, I reported:
Both 18V and XGT drills are said to deliver the same 1,250 in-lbs of max torque.
Advertisement
This is true. Makita USA does advertise both the XPH14 18V hammer drill and GFD01 XGT hammer drill as delivering 1,250 in-lbs max torque.
I also wrote:
The 18V and XGT hammer drills have the same max torque
However, as I recently learned, this does not appear to be true.
It has come to my attention that the two drills deliver different max fastening torque specs.
Power tool brands typically advertise their cordless drills according to max fastening torque, or at least this has been my long-time understanding.
Advertisement
Makita, however, seems to be advertising these two drills using a different “peak torque” measurement.
Here are more detailed torque figures for Makita’s flagship model 18V LXT and XGT cordless hammer drills, according to international brochures and specs tables:
| Makita 18V | Makita XGT | |
|---|---|---|
| Peak Torque | 141 Nm 1250 in-lbs | 141 Nm 1250 in-lbs |
| Max Tightening Torque | 130 Nm 1150 in-lbs | 140 Nm 1240 in-lbs |
I have seen the 18V LXT model’s max fastening torque listed at a lower value of 125 Nm in some of Makita’s product pages, but for the sake of this post we’ll use the higher value of 130 Nm.
This chart compares the max tightening torque and advertised max torque for Makita’s highest torque 18V and XGT cordless hammer drills.
Maximum fastening torque is usually measured using battery-powered drills and rundown adapters that simulate different types of fastening joints.
How is this other “peak” torque metric determined, if not by maximum fastening torque?
Why are both drills advertised here as delivering 1,250 in-lbs of max torque when different values are advertised elsewhere?
Makita Canada, for example, advertises their 18V hammer drill as delivering 1,150 in-lbs (130 Nm) max torque, and their XGT hammer drill as delivering 1,240 in-lbs (140 Nm) max torque. This agrees with specs tables from other international regions where Makita lists these same maximum fastening torque values alongside “peak” torque values of 141 Nm, (1,250 in-lbs).
To sum things up, here in the USA, Makita advertises their flagship 18V and XGT hammer drills as delivering 1,250 in-lbs max torque. But when you look at the more detailed torque specs that Makita advertises in other markets for the equivalent international model drills, the 18V LXT model has a lower max fastening torque than the XGT model.
Advertised torque specs of 1,250 in-lbs for both models suggest comparable if not identical torque capabilities. But outside of Makita USA’s product literature, this is shown to not be true, as the maximum fastening torque values are different.
The XGT drill’s max fastening torque spec (140 Nm/1,240 in-lbs) is very close to its advertised peak torque value (141 Nm/1,250 in-lbs). However, the 18V LXT drill’s max fastening torque spec (130 Nm/1150 in-lbs) is quite a bit off from its advertised peak torque value (141 Nm/1,250 in-lbs).
Why?
Randy
“I missed something”. Yes, what you missed and continue to miss is the documented fact that manufacturer’s published specifications do not match tested results. Other tool testers have tested and documented the manufacturer’s specifications against their actual performance across specific models and brands, with many brands having a consistently higher variation than others. Yet, you continue to publish posts referring to and comparing models across manufacturers to each other. At a minimum you could reference the manufacturer specification and then apply a factor to adjust the specification for a brands trending honesty. Or, for available data on a given model, use tested data. But, to continue to rely on published manufacturer’s specifications is reckless. After reading the first two sentences of this post, my feeling is, here we go again…. And I am done. Never got to the second paragraph. Whether it is torque specs, lumens, runtime, you just continue to just rely on manufacturer’s marketing materials. And, it benefits the dishonest. It is the easy for you, but does not benefit your audience. You can do better. Produce some real tangible content.
Chris S
Man, bit of an attitude….
Jared
Usually the brands have a testing method they apply to their tools, it just may not be the same method between brands. I.e. if you could get Makita to answer the question, I bet there is a different test they use to determine “max fastening torque” and “peak torque”.
Which number to advertise is probably a marketing choice. This time they must have wanted to the two drills to appear the same, even though their own numbers indicate there is actually a difference.
Stuart
Do torque specs perfectly reflect real-world capabilities? Not usually. They are provided as a relative comparison against other cordless drills advertised with similar specs.
At the least, you should be able to trust a brand’s specs as a relative metric for comparison against the same brand’s other tools.
How do you “apply a factor to adjust the specification for a brands trending honesty” without clear indication of where those specs come from?
There’s no magical correction factor that you just use to “adjust” brands’ torque claims.
There are industry standards for torque, lumens, flashlight runtime, illumination distance, horsepower, and so forth that reputable brands adhere to.
Even in the absence of concrete standards, there are widely accepted practices, such as for determining tape measure standout – and now reach – that tool brands adhere to.
It’s great that you completely dismiss torque specs, but the fact of the matter is that many – if not MOST – people make decisions based entirely on these and other advertised values.
JR Ramos
I’d say that any comparison between models would/should/really does stay exactly within that single manufacturer’s realm…until you know the testing methods and published values are accurate-ish and on a level playing field (hey, DeWalt!).
He mentioned flashlights…that’s a fantastic example of exactly this. Lumens from Brand A Model 1 to Model 2 and 3 are fine to compare (for the most part)….lumens or other measurements from Brand A to Brand B…..usually notsomuch, even with the scientific standards and the gentleman’s standards that are in place in that niche.
I suppose we’d need to know Makita’s specific methodology and such, but it’d be easy to assume that the differences between the two models lie in battery voltage/current output, the sustainability of same under working loads, the design of the motor, maybe gearing or circuitry-smarts, too. Not surprising to me at all that they might be different even if the only factor is the battery pack (no minor aspect there of course).
Franco
Isn’t there an institute (PTI?) that independently test tools to make sure the MFR’s claims are being met?
Stuart
Not quite. PTI is an industry group to which Makita USA and other cordless power tool brand belong to. They published test protocols for tool brands to use in their advertised torque claims, to ensure fair relative measurements. But it seems that it’s up to brands to determine if they want to follow those practices. There’s more on that here – https://toolguyd.com/makita-cordless-drill-questionable-torque-specs/ in the collapsed section about torque measurements.
Makita’s max torque claims do NOT appear to be in adherence with PTI’s torque measurement guidelines. But it’s voluntary, and the industry group of brands doesn’t seem to be self-policing itself. If other brands also deviate from the recommended relative torque measurement practices, anything will go and the spec will lose all meaning for comparative purposes.
James
Developing an “honesty adjustment” takes a lot of objective testing and is well beyond ToolGuyd’s scope. However, it is worth noting that the Tourqe Test Channel does do such robust, objective testing of a variety of tools and has often noted that Makita is one of the only brands that routinely (though not always) out performs the published values. Many brands frequently come in at 70-85% of the published specs.
Lyle
What a jerk.
Chris S
Stuart, I’m not going to attack you. Just a minor nitpick.
In the chart above, you say “advertised max torque” under the red bars.
Due to using “max” twice, I think this could lead to confusion. It should probably be “Advertised PEAK torque” to match the rest of the article.
I’m currently having to explain myself more than once to my parents on the importance of understanding “Peak” vs “RMS” in generator nomenclature while they shop for RV generators.
Wording things like this is prevalent throughout advertising and is a serious problem. Cough, vacuum HP ratings, cough, cough…
Stuart
I considered that, but the exact language Makita USA uses is “max torque.” They use different language in other regions.
It gets extremely confusing as some of Makita’s international specs reference max tightening torque (hard and soft), max lock torque, and max peak torque each with different values.
“Max peak torque” for the XGT is 141 Nm, which is used in Makita USA’s “max torque” specs. Makita Canada uses “torque” and “maximum torque” to refer to the maximum fastening torque, which doesn’t appear in Makita USA’s specs tables at all.
It’s a mess.
Collin
“peak torque” is likely an instantaneous measurement.
“Max tightening torque” is almost certainly the more useful of the two measurements as it’s based on fastening a joint.
Collin
I’m thinking peak torque is related to when you finish fastening a hard joint, and the drill kicks back on you. That’s likely the peak torque–the torque of the kickback.
The max fastening torque is likely what the tool applies to the fastener while actually driving the fastener.
Stuart
What about “max peak torque?”
Lock (stall?) torque is used in some of Makita’s spec tables, alongside both max fastening and max peak torque.
What I’m wondering is whether max tightening torque is tested under battery power, and max peak torque is tested under other less real-world-applicable conditions.
xu lu
In the real world the difference is likely minor in most cases. What isnt minor is purposeful deceit. If you cant compete and Makita is long past the point of relevance in the US, then you wind up doing something like this that damages your credibility.
Mr.X
When getting down to a few inch-pounds or Newton-meters, wouldn’t variation among individual tools be more of a factor? I get that standard manufacturing produces reliable and consistent products, but it is very possible to get a “lemon” or a “strong” version of any given tool. I’ve had both.
And I agree with the idea of an independent evaluation above and beyond the marketing hype. Perhaps more accurate and scientifically sound testing than some of the YT tool test and comparison videos. If anyone can do it, you can, Stuart. Of course, that being said, lab testing rarely duplicates tool use on the job site…
Stuart
Some variation is of course expected, and max hard torque measurements tend to vary more than for max soft torque.
It’s a moot point to test for repeatability or variances between copies if we can’t see or understand how Makita USA’s advertised torque claims are derived.
It seems that they’re basing drill torque claims on different testing methods that produce considerably larger measurements when compared to the max fastening torque measurements published in overseas markets.
Is this stall torque? Stall torque for a test drill powered by an 18V battery? Stall torque when a drill is powered by a DC power supply that can deliver considerably higher power levels than any of their 18V batteries?
Franco
Stuart, in your article you mentioned specs shown by Makita Canada, and then in one of your responses above, you also mention the difference in other regions.
Do you know, or have you ever asked, why Makita USA has different part numbers for a given product than everywhere else? In Canada, Europe, Asia and basically worldwide, a given drill, saw, impact or other tool; all carry the same part number. In the USA, the same product will have a completely different part number.
Any reason you know of for this?
Stuart
I don’t know why Makita USA creates different part numbers from the rest the world.
This is done a lot of times in retail to hinder comparative shopping. If model number 123 is at one store, and 123A at another, it prevents price-matching, allows for exclusives, and makes it harder for customers to compare specs and pricing either by intent or incidentally.
With tools, there are sometimes regional differences, such as how kits can come with chargers specific to different countries’ AC plug and voltage standards.
Many tool brands have the same model numbers regardless of region.
Sometimes it’s done for support reasons. I bought my Makita XGT blower at a far lower price from Amazon Japan than it’s sold for here in the USA. It’s not clear whether I’d be able to send it to Makita USA for repair. Some brands support products regardless of where they’re purchased, others require they be purchased from regional sales office or distributor.
You can buy the same model drills in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe, such as the new DHP489Z. But here in the USA it’s the XPH16. Why? Good question. I’m sure Makita USA can tell you if you ask the right person, but they won’t answer it for me.
Franco
I know what you mean, to keep prices “exclusive” to a retailer, I have seen part numbers or models have the slightest difference, while still being the same basic product, to keep consumers from not being able to claim price difference. But this happens at the regional level, and there are subtle differences intentionally made to the products, again to protect the retailers.
I find this strange. I have NOT done a comprehensive study, I just check part numbers when shopping or needing more info.
Any German brands like Metabo and Fein, as well as hand tools like Knipex, NWS, Stabila, and others, part numbers are good worldwide. DeWalt, Milwaukee, and hand tools of any US MFR I have checked, the part numbers are good worldwide. Basically, I cannot think of any other tool brand that has exclusive part numbers for the US, compared to the worldwide market, other than Makita
Rob
They will not service the Japanese import. Holds true for every region. No foreign tools. Only foreign management. 😂
Rob
100% because prices are traditionally much lower in the USA to compete with the race to the bottom. They don’t want other regions importing from the USA to save a buck. Bosch also does this. Milwaukee also does this.
The irony to this is that….Makita really ain’t cheaper here no more. More often the opposite. Especially considering (non-Canadian) Americans rarely pay import duties. It’s cheaper for me to buy Makita from the UK. The other irony is…well..as if anyone is gonna find a Bosch tool they’re looking for in the US. 😂