Makita USA launched a new 18V cordless hammer drill, model XPH16, and its lack of a side handle led me to question its advertised torque claims.
Makita says their new 18V LXT cordless drill delivers “a full 970 in-lbs max torque.”
The company also says that the XPH16 hammer drill delivers “up to 70% more power than the previous model.”
Advertisement
If this new 18V cordless delivers close to a thousand inch pounds of maximum torque, where’s the auxiliary side handle? This seemingly simple question has significant implications.
Looking into the matter revealed unexplained discrepancies in Makita’s advertised torque specs.
Basically, it seems that the drill doesn’t come with a side handle because it doesn’t deliver anywhere close to 970 in-lbs of fastening torque.
Why a Missing Side Handle Raised Doubt
Any cordless drill with a torque-to-handle-length ratio above a certain value must ship with a longer side handle in order to meet UL safety guidelines. Lower-torque drills don’t require a side handle.
The new Makita XPH16 18V hammer drill doesn’t ship with a side handle.
See Also: Why High-Torque Cordless Drills Come with a Side Handle
Advertisement
I reviewed a Ridgid 18V cordless drill (model R86116) a few years ago, and it was advertised as delivering 750 in-lbs of max torque.
If that 18V drill, with its 750 in-lbs max torque claims, shipped with a side handle, why doesn’t this new Makita drill come with one?
How can this new Makita drill deliver close to 1000 in-lbs of max torque and not ship with a side handle?
Possible Explanations
Does it have an extended-length handle such that a longer side handle isn’t needed?
This is the Makita XGT compact cordless drill, with a 585 in-lb max torque rating. Most of Makita’s 18V and 18V-form factor XGT cordless drills and hammer drills have similar handle grip proportions.
Here is the new XPH16 hammer drill, which is advertised as delivering 970 in-lbs max torque. Its handle grip does not look to be noticeably longer – it looks like a typical Makita cordless drill.
Did UL change their safety guidelines? I could not find any evidence of this. Even if there was a change, safety guidelines are usually expanded over time, and not relaxed.
Is Makita finally bring anti-kickback safety mechanisms to the 18V LXT line? No, it seems they’re still keeping that feature exclusive to the premium XGT model drill. Would it have made a difference?
As the drill doesn’t ship with a side handle, and I can’t think of a reasonable explanation as to why, we need to take a closer look at Makita’s torque specs.
Understanding Max Torque Specifications
When you see the phrase maximum torque in a cordless drill’s marketing materials, the value typically refers to the tool’s maximum hard-joint tightening torque. Until now, I had long-considered this to be a universal rule.
Clicking or tapping the button below will expand a section on this page with additional background information. You can skip it to save time, and come back if you have any questions.
Examining Makita’s Torque Specs
Let’s take a look at the torque specs for a couple of Makita cordless drills and hammer drills. These specs were sourced from Makita Australia’s product pages for drills with identical designs, features, and max torque values as models marketed in the USA under different model numbers.
Makita 18V SubCompact Drill Torque Specs
Makita’s 18V SubCompact cordless drill delivers 40 Nm max lock torque, 40 Nm max hard torque, and 25 Nm max soft torque.
Nm refers to Newton meters, a metric system measure of torque. 1 Nm is equal to around 8.85 inch-pounds. Lock torque seems to be akin to “stall” torque, which usually isn’t used to describe cordless drill performance.
The US model is advertised as delivering 350 in-lbs/40 Nm max torque.
Makita 18V Hammer Drill Torque Specs (Previous Model)
Makita’s 18V brushless compact hammer drill delivers a maximum lock torque of 60 Nm (~531 in-lbs) and maximum hard tightening torque of 54 Nm (~478 in-lbs).
There’s a small unexpected discrepancy here, where the advertised max torque is 11.1% higher than the drill’s max tightening torque.
The USA model, XPH12, is advertised as delivering 530 in-lbs max torque, or 60 Nm. Makita USA does not reference the drill’s maximum fastening torque in any product brochures or specs tables.
This is the “previous model” drill that Makita compares the new one to, with their “up to 70% more power” claims.
Makita 18V High Torque Hammer Drill Torque Specs
For Makita’s flagship 18V LXT brushless drill, the max lock torque is listed as 125 Nm, and the max hard joint tightening torque is 130 Nm.
The drill is advertised as delivering 141 Nm of peak torque, or 1248 in-lbs. This value is 8.46% higher than the drill’s max fastening torque.
Makita USA advertises this model as delivering 1250 in-lbs max torque, which corresponds to the 141 Nm peak torque value.
It’s unclear why there are 3 different values. The max tightening torque is 130 Nm, the max lock torque is 125 Nm, and the peak torque is 141 Nm?
Makita new Zealand’s product spec sheet lists the 18V hammer drill as delivering 125 Nm max fastening torque, and 141 Nm peak torque. Makita UK lists the same hammer drill as delivering 130 Nm max hard fastening torque, the same as given in Makita AUS’s spec sheet.
I use the higher of the two values, 130 Nm, in the chart below, as the maximum tightening torque.
Makita XGT High Torque Drill Torque Specs
Makita’s higher performance XGT 36V/40V Max cordless hammer drill is advertised as delivering 125 Nm max lock torque, 141 Nm max peak torque, 140 Nm max hard torque, and 68 Nm max soft torque.
Here in the USA, the XGT cordless drill is advertised as delivering 1250 in-lbs torque, which correlates to the 141 Nm peak torque value.
The peak torque value is 0.714% higher than the max tightening torque – that’s very close agreement.
A discrepancy was made apparent.
Makita’s 18V and XGT flagship cordless hammer drills are both advertised as delivering 141 Nm of peak torque. However, the XGT model is said to deliver 140 Nm max tightening torque while the 18V drill delivers 125 or 130 Nm max tightening torque (depending on the publication source).
Read More: Makita 18V and XGT Cordless Drills Do NOT Have the Same Torque
Looking at Makita Canada’s listings, the equivalent XGT hammer drill is advertised as delivering 1240 in-lbs (140 Nm) max torque, and the equivalent 18V hammer drill is advertised as delivering 1150 in-lbs (130 Nm) max torque. There, neither drill is advertised according to the 1250 in-lbs (141 Nm) peak torque values that Makita USA advertises for both drills.
This is confusing. So do the 18V and XGT cordless drills deliver the same max torque, or not? Makita USA’s torque claims would suggest yes, but the spec tables in other regions suggest no.
Makita 18V Hammer Drill Torque Specs (New Model)
For the new international model drill that’s equivalent to the Makita USA model XPH16 drill, Makita advertises 110 Nm peak torque, 73 Nm max hard-joint tightening torque, and 40 Nm max soft-joint tightening torque.
110 Nm converts to 973.6 in-lbs, and 73 Nm converts to around 646 in-lbs. That’s a significant difference.
Makita UK lists the same specs – 73 Nm and 40 Nm max hard and soft joint fastening torque, respectively.
The USA model is only advertised by its 970 in-lbs (110 Nm) max torque value.
Going by these figures, Makita advertises their new cordless hammer drill as delivering “a full 970 in-lbs max torque” but it seems it can only deliver up to 646 in-lbs of max tightening torque.
It seems that this is why the drill doesn’t ship with an auxiliary side handle, because it doesn’t deliver “a full 970 in-lbs” of max fastening torque.
If the maximum fastening torque is 73 Nm, or around 646 in-lbs, how can it be advertised as delivering 970 in-lbs of max torque?
If I’m understanding all of this correctly, it would mean that, with this new 18V cordless drill, Makita’s advertised “max torque” spec of 970 in-lbs is around 50.7% higher than its maximum fastening torque value.
It had been my understanding that cordless drill torque values correlate to their maximum fastening or tightening torque. It is highly surprising that Makita would deviate from this.
Some of Makita’s other cordless drills also have advertised max torque values that are higher than their max fastening torque specs, but with far smaller differences.
Torque Comparison Charts
This chart shows the differences between max tightening and advertised max torque specs for the models of Makita cordless drills and hammer drills discussed above.
For the newest model cordless drill, there is a massive step between its max tightening torque, and the max torque Makita USA is advertising for it.
Between Makita’s latest and previous 18V brushless hammer drills, the difference between their max fastening torques of ~646 in-lbs (73 Nm) and ~478 in-lbs (54 Nm) is around 35%. The difference between their “max torque” values of 970 in-lbs (110 Nm) and 530 in-lbs (60 Nm) is around 83%.
It’s worth mentioning that the max low speed for the new model is 10% higher than for the previous model (550 vs 500 RPM), but the max high speed is 10% lower (1800 vs 2000 RPM).
The difference between Makita’s 18V and XGT cordless drill torque specs is also curious. The advertised “max torque” value are the same, but the 18V model has a lower max fastening torque.
I posted about this separately, here: Makita 18V and XGT Cordless Drills Do NOT Have the Same Torque.
Why is this a Big Deal?
Let’s say you’re shopping for cordless drills. One brand advertises their drill as delivering 970 in-lbs max torque, but it delivers ~646 in-lbs max fastening torque.
A competing brand advertises their product as delivering 850 in-lbs max torque, and this is based on its measured max fastening torque, which is what I would expect.
Which drill is more capable or potentially more powerful? If you go by what it says on the box, the 970 in-lbs has the higher torque spec. But if you go by max fastening torque, the 850 in-lbs model would outperform the 970 in-lbs model.
How can tool buyers be expected to make informed decisions if one brand highlights their “max peak torque” while another uses an an opaque max fastening torque?
This doesn’t just affect competitive comparisons.
Makita’s 18V SubCompact drill is advertised as delivering 350 in-lbs max torque. For that model, the max fastening torque and max lock torque are the same.
So does this new model deliver 2.77X the torque compared the SubCompact model, or 1.85X the torque?
Does the new drill deliver 83% greater torque than Makita’s previous model, or 35% greater torque?
What happens if competing brands loses sales to Makita over this? Will some of them start advertising based on metrics other than maximum fastening torque? Are they doing it already and Makita is simply following other brands’ examples?
Why is there a less than 1% difference between the max fastening and advertised torques for Makita’s flagship XGT cordless drill, and a nearly 51% difference for this new 18V model?
Is this all because bigger numbers sell more tools? I wouldn’t think so, or at least I would hope not.
I sincerely hope that Makita can explain what’s going on here.
Makita USA has not answered any of our questions about the matter.
MFC
Just shooting in the dark here, but can companies claim a higher torque by manually turning the tool until failure happens? To where the motor can’t spin past XX in. lbs. but if you turn the tool the chuck can handle XX in. lbs. before it releases? Or to where they’re able to inflate numbers by driving the bolt/whatever and then jerking the tool in the direction of torque manually to shoot the dial higher at the very end? Seems like there could be ways to artificially drive the numbers higher, but I would like to know how each company arrives at the torque values it assigns to their tools because I don’t think I’ve ever seen a company actually deliver on its claimed torque.
Jared
That ran through my head too. It would be somewhat like how flashlights with multiple LEDs are occasionally advertised (dishonestly in my view) based on their theoretical max lumen output. The light never produces even a fraction of that lumen-rating, but the manufacturer can claim the figure is grounded… in something.
Alex Schwallenberg
So I’m just saying. I’ve never used a handle on a hammer drill unless I’m drilling a 1″ hole or bigger. These drills aren’t made to hammer drill a 2.5″ whole through solid concrete. You don’t need a handle to put tapcons in or drill a little whole. I feel like we’re just picking things apart for no reason.
Zee
Maybe because of safety features like anti wrist torque ability it allows them to release higher power drills w\out the liability of harming people?
Stuart
Makita has NOT brought this to any 18V drill yet that I’ve seen. Even if they did, every model drill with anti-kickback tech that I’ve seen still comes with side handle.
Roy
In the Netherlands we have a Makita 18V drill with anti-kickback tech with a hard torque of 73 Nm and a soft torque of 40 Nm. This model also doesn’t come with an auxiliary handle.
Model number DHP489, I don’t know what the American model number would be.
https://www.makita.nl/artikel/makita-dhp489rtj-18-v-klopboor-schroefmachine.html#tab_content_9
Stuart
The USA model has no mention of such a feature – https://www.makitatools.com/products/details/XPH16T .
Chris Huggins
Reach vs Standout all over again….
https://toolguyd.com/dewalt-craftsman-tape-measure-reach-standout-112019
Stuart
That’s what I’m worried about. But with standout and reach, the relationship was easy – reach is just standout plus 3 feet.
Are these specs measured under the same conditions as max fastening torque, such as with a charged battery, or completely different conditions?
Adam
Read maybe a quarter, and will save the rest for the porch to be accompanied by something to enjoy the article.
Definitely a lot of effort put into writing this, and rather not just glance over. I really don’t care for companies taking advantage of customers thru deceptive practices, no matter the means.
TomD
doe snot typo instead of does not.
Stuart
Thank you! *fixed*
TomD
Torque Test Channel did a video where they basically hopped up the battery pack for the Makita tools and got it to perform decently better.
Which raises a question – if your battery packs are old and not “the beans” can you sell a drill that would be too strong without a side handle if you had a good battery pack? And if you do so, and later release a better pack, what then?
Stuart
Can cordless drills deliver different performance levels depending on the batteries they’re paired with?
Yes. We’ve seen this with certain Milwaukee M18 drills, and recently with Dewalt.
The tools need to be designed for this, though.
Tools will have limits above which you won’t be able to squeeze out any more performance. Run modern drills too hard and they’ll overheat and shut down. Run older drills too hard – such as Makita’s first generation brushless hammer drill, and they’ll overheat and start smoking.
Jared
Maybe add TomD’s idea to the list of conspiracy theories about how Makita could achieve two different numbers. E.g. maybe Makita can achieve the higher number by using a different power source than what they sell to us consumers.
That would actually fit with MM’s observation too! The XGT tool didn’t benefit from a larger battery – it’s max tightening torque and advertised max torque also match. The LXT tool on the other hand DOES improve with a unobtainable custom-built pack. Maybe Makita is using those numbers for advertising purposes.
That might even make a certain kind of twisted sense since it would show you what a tool is capable of – if not handicapped by the old battery tech. The trick is just that those aren’t numbers consumer can achieve unless Makita releases a better battery.
MM
I watched that video as well, but it is interesting to note that performance gains from larger batteries is not consistent between different models of tool. For example, if you watch this video it is strange to see that of all the models tested the Makita XGT did not improve with a bigger battery.
Scott Cope
Why cant they just be truthful! Big business doesnt do that any more, pur poor country is going to ____!!
Collin
I don’t think UL regulations are in any way legally binding in the US.
Stuart
UL: “in the United States there are many municipalities that have laws, codes or regulations which require a product to be tested by a nationally recognized testing laboratory before it can be sold in their area.”
Even if not, OSHA requires electrical equipment to be approved by UL or another NRTL.
While not legally binding, professional power tool brands make a point to design their tools for approved use by as broad a user base and in as many jobsites and work environments as possible.
Ct451
The question it raises is why do people rely on numbers that have no real world value to make their purchasing decisions. Marketing people see that stupid numbers sell products so they take advantage of it. I get the appeal of numbers.
Stuart
Because in most situations numbers do hold comparative purpose.
A 3 GHz computer processing unit should be faster than a 2 GHz one. A 150 lumen flashlight should be brighter than an 80 lumen flashlight. 4 HP should be more powerful than 2 HP.
It’s when manufacturers use numbers to manipulate consumers that things get skewed.
A particular tool brand describes their hole saw kits based on the number of holes saws and arbors. But when when holiday promos come out, the special buy kits have different numbering where pilot hole drill bits are included in the number and there are more of them. Because of this, a special buy 15pc kit might have fewer hole saws than an everyday 11pc kit. I asked the tool brand why they did this, and was told “it’s what the customer wanted.” So in that case it was the home center that wanted to be able to promote a x-piece hole saw kit at a certain price.
Torque is a useful comparative value as long as it’s measured in the same way across different brands. If not, it should at least be measured in the same way within a brand.
Here, it appears that Makita has deviating from max fastening torque, and it’s even muddying up comparisons against their own products. Brands can do whatever they want, but this can confuse and even mislead consumers, and potentially lead to competitive counters that eventually affect the entire industry.
Richard
Too much technical jargon. Been using Makita cordless’s for years because they have the grunt to handle industrial roofing requirements day in, day out. Can’t say I’ve had the time nor inclination to check if their claims are to the exact Nm or not. I’m sure it matters to someone out there. Certainly won’t stop me purchasing their product.
Stuart
It’s going to matter to end users who might upgrade only to find that the drill doesn’t deliver “a full 970 in-lbs max torque” as advertised.
David Z
That response contradicts your own experience. Did you buy a particular model previously because of its stated specifications? Let’s say your current one is stolen. You sound like you’d get another Makita. Won’t you be disappointed if you find a new model, rated as your old one was, now provides poorer performance?
James+C
How do max torque and fastening torque translate to drilling performance? Is there a difference? I don’t know. Don’t forget these metrics need to be applicable to use cases in order to be relevant. I think most people use drills for making holes and impacts for fasteners.
Jared
Drills apply constant torque whether drilling or driving. Torque is more easily and consistently measured by checking how tight the fastener gets, but that doesn’t mean it only relates to fasteners. A higher torque drill should be capable of spinning a larger, more demanding drill bit in tougher materials.
Stuart
That is not accurate.
Let’s say you are driving a screw into wood with a manual handheld screwdriver. Are you exerting the same torque at the start as when you finish?
Consider the adjustable torque clutch of a drill. Set the drill to a low setting. Drive a fastener. Once torque builds up to a certain level, the clutch will slip, ideally allowing you to drive screws in to repeatable depths. What happens if you’re driving a screw into wood and hit a knot? The torque spikes and you will have to adjust the torque setting to fully seat that fastener.
That torque delivery is now constant is why there are usually different values for hard and soft torque, at least in cordless drill specs tables outside the USA.
The soft torque value is simulated by slower resistive torque build up, and the hard torque value is simulated by faster resistive torque build up.
Hard torque specs are higher than soft torque.
When fastening metal to metal, hard torque might be more applicable. When driving a lag screw into wood, soft torque will typically be more applicable.
Drilling applications are model or characterize. Are there knots or nails in the wood? Are you using a self-feeding bit? Is there increasing sidewall friction on longer or larger bits?
But yes, higher torque drills should be able to perform more demanding drilling applications.
Stuart
Let’s say you’re drilling through 2x construction lumber, or a 4×4. Greater torque allows for larger and longer holes to be drilled easier and with less bogging down. The speed makes a difference too. When the application resistance increases to where the max torque delivery is reached, that’s when you’ll start to have slowdowns or stalling.
It’s difficult to model the torque performance for average materials – 2x lumber, plate steel, etc. Hard and soft torque are relatively easy to simulate using a rundown adapter.
A hard joint adapter might have a very strong spring with short compression distance, and a soft joint adapter might have a stack of spring washers or longer compression distance.
Similar to knowing one’s 1-rep weight lifting limit and 10-rep limit, hard and soft joint torque should be enough to reasonable shape one’s expectations as to how a cordless drill will perform in common applications.
It doesn’t always work out that way, because there are other factors involved. But max fastening torque is commonly referred to because experienced users have seen and felt how higher torque drills perform compared to lower torque models.
You can absolutely feel the difference between say a drill that delivers 600 in-lbs and one that delivers 400 in-lbs max fastening torque.
If a drill advertised as delivering 1250 in-lbs max torque really performs like a 1240 in-lb model, as the numbers suggest for the XGT model, that’s not a big difference. The difference between 970 in-lbs and ~646 in-lbs is huge, and far greater than is apparent for the other Makita cordless drills whose specs were examined above.
Metrics don’t need to be perfectly related to real-world performance as long as they’re consistent.
Consider a free-standing bookcase. Does it matter if the width is 24″ or 24.2″? Usually, no, as long as all of the sides and shelves are consistently sized relative to each other.
If you have a cordless drill that’s advertised as delivering 750 in-lbs max fastening torque, and you’re having difficulty drilling larger holes, it’s reasonable to expect that a drill advertised as delivering 970 in-lbs will provide you with greater application performance.
But if that 970 in-lb drill only delivers 646 in-lbs of max fastening torque, is it going to deliver greater application performance compared to your 750 in-lbs max drill?
With the two drills’ advertised torque specs seemingly derived using different methods, the torque can no longer be used as a comparative measure.
Most users look at max torque when making purchasing decisions. What can they use if max torque specs can no longer be relied on as a comparative measure?
Yakub
Why not release your own test with real numbers instead of a speculation article?
Stuart
Sure – I’ll tell you where you can send a $10K check for the necessary equipment.
Pointing out that a brand’s published technical specs directly contradict their advertising claims isn’t speculation.
Speculation would be if I were guessing as to *why* Makita is now advertising this drill according to “max torque” values rather than typical “max fastening torque.”
Makita USA recently laid off more than 200 people. Maybe they fired the one person there who understands the difference between max torque and max fastening torque. Maybe it’s intentional because they’re desperate for sales or to make the 18V system look like it hasn’t reached end-of-life. Maybe they’re rejiggering how they advertise torque. Or maybe it’s a mistake. All of that would be speculation.
James
Stuart, you are correct that it would be a substantial cost to test, and honestly, I’m not sure you have the background or objectivity to do such tests. But you don’t need to! Torque Test Channel has already done many of these tests and found Makita almost universally UNDERESTIMATES their performance. So, while I agree their advertising is wonky, does it matter in the face of actual performance? And why single-out Makita? Milwaukee flat-out makes-up their performance selling points and in objective 3rd party tests often significantly underperformes their advertised specs. (I use both brands in roughly equal measure).
We get Makita’s product development & advertising is increasingly missing the mark, that they don’t “play ball” with you, and you don’t like them. Give it a rest…
David Z
I think the point here is that, regardless of what other brands do, Makita’s stated figures do not make sense within their own brand’s line-up.
I’d prefer Stuart bring up whatever he wants. I know I can skip topics or articles that don’t interest me.
Stuart
Exactly.
A 16 gallon shop vac that’s advertised as delivering 4 peak HP is not delivering 4 HP. But you can expect it to deliver more power than a 3 peak HP vacuum from the same and usually other brands, and less than ones rated at 5 peak HP.
As long as the peak HP values are tested and advertised in similar manners, they can be reasonably precise relative measures of performance, despite not being accurate.
Noah
Interesting read. As others have mentioned, Torque Test Channel seems to have found a way to consistently test all manner of drills equally. I’d be very curious to see what they make of this. To me it makes no sense. Personally I think all drills should come with anti kickback and an option for a side handle. Like someone already said, Makita usually lowballs their numbers when it comes to the power of their drills. Could it be possible that the lower number represents tightening and the higher number is for loosening? Like some impacts have… Doesn’t really make sense for a drill but at this point it’s anyone’s guess.
Stuart
So because a YouTuber says Makita is conservative about some of their tool specs, it’s okay for the brand to advertise substantially higher torque specs for this one?
If you’re looking to upgrade or buy a new tool, of course it does.
Don’t make the mistake of underestimating how many people shop based solely on advertised claims and technical specifications.
But you’re saying I shouldn’t talk about things like this? That I should just keep it to myself?
Because I found a huge discrepancy between their advertised torque claims and couldn’t resolve them.
If you can find other brands advertising the same tools with considerably higher specs here, I’ll post about them too.
I’ve called out other brands in the past. e.g. https://toolguyd.com/greenworks-24v-brushless-drill-torque-marketing-claims/
Apparently I don’t “play ball” with them, although I have tried to, to an extent. I don’t tolerance external influences on my pen very well, and I guess they find that unacceptable.
I did email Makita USA asking for an explanation, and they didn’t want want to provide an answer. Okay. I did my due diligence in asking and waiting for a response.
You seem to forget that I’m a tool user. “Would I want to know about this?” is the test about whether a topic should be pursued.
The only way Makita is different is in how if this was Bosch, Dewalt, Hilti, Metabo, Metabo HPT, Harbor Freight, Milwaukee, Flex, Kobalt, Ridgid, Ryobi, Festool, or most other brands, someone could – and would – have explained to me where an advertised claim came from.
If Makita USA was able to explain this, so it didn’t look so much like a shady marketing trick to boost interest and sales, the post would have been a lot shorter.
Is this not the same tool, despite the different regional model numbers?
https://www.makitatools.com/products/details/XPH16Z
https://www.makita.co.nz/products/model/DHP489Z
USA: 110 Nm max torque
NZ: 73 Nm max fastening torque
Can you explain this to me? Do you agree with how Makita USA is advertising this new drill?
I’ve bought tools and products in the past that promised more than they delivered, and so I’m sensitive to accurate advertising.
In my experience, only companies that have something to hide make a habit of not explaining themselves or their advertising claims.
James
I’m not justifying their opaque or potentially bogus marketing, simply pointing out that you are singling out Makita and making a big deal of something that other brands are notorious for. My point was that while their written specs are either erroneous or (and?) poorly defined, Makita at least tends to over deliver. I have more Milwaukee than any other brand, but do I belive their advertised specs? Not for a second. Their inflation of specs, skewed testing methods, and marketing hype are well documented. It is sometimes obvious even to a general user like me without standardized testing methods. Still good tools? Still do what I need them to? Are some still best in class? Yup!
It’s good to talk about discrepancies, people should see that, but your negativity towards Makita is rampant. You’ve published 4 negative articles specifically about Makita in the last two days. Given that their tools still provide a range of performance similar to other major brands, this negativeity comes across (to me at least) as a vendetta rather than an objective critique.
The intent of my previous closing was to highlight that there ARE legitimate reasons why Makita is failing in their development and marketing including not responding to press inquiries (I said THEY are not playing ball, not YOU are not playing ball). It is frustrating and disappointing to see a company operating nonsensically, but the fact is they still make great tools that perform, last, and are comfortable to use.
Stuart
@James
All of these things came to light at the same time after I started looking into why their advertised torques made no sense.
Breaking them up into small more focused pieces seemed like a better idea than having one long post discussing numerous different discrepancies.
I found:
i) Seemingly inflated torque specs or at least discrepancies I cannot understand and no one will explain
ii) Disparities between how USA models are advertised compared to in Canada and overseas regions (why?!)
iii) Wonky pricing (tool kit = $359, 2-tool kit = $339??)
iv) the $339 2-tool kit comes with a charger I’ve never seen before, and it looks to have a 2 hr 15 min charging time compared to the 45 minute charging time expected from Makita’s rapid chargers.
Would you have preferred for me to space these, perhaps as part of a “what shady stuff are they doing now?” series?
If nobody at Makita can answer these questions, why not close out the stories?
You like Makita tools? Great, so do I.
If a car dealership misleads you on horsepower, does it not matter just because you like the car?
And I know you said they are not playing ball. The general idea is that Person A plays ball to gain favor or specific action from Person B.
Nobody has to “play ball” to gain my favor.
But if a brand wants to share insights, they have to actually answer questions.
I have less patience as a consumer. Makita keeps raising prices on the tools I was considering, and other tools I’d very strongly consider aren’t available here at all despite launching in many overseas regions. Other brands have gotten better about this (most notably Bosch), but Makita has gotten much worse.
And for what, because they lost a lot of money launching Outdoor Adventure? Is a single Outdoor Adventure tool different from what was already available in the USA market? I should have known of course they weren’t going to bring more of Makita’s lifestyle tools here, they just relaunched existing older tools in a different color.
I’ve got no vendetta. If we were on speaking terms again, the posts would read exactly the same, but with insights or explanations following wherever questions are asked.
MM
” Torque Test Channel has already done many of these tests and found Makita almost universally UNDERESTIMATES their performance.”
That is a false conclusion. Yes, TTC did say that Makita has a reputation for conservative ratings, however their own data–which is what you should be looking at instead of one liner quotes–shows that it is not consistent. It is never wise to assume anything is 100% consistent. And it is down right asinine make that assumption when we have data we have from channels like TTC which prove there are exceptions.
James
I’m a researcher and statistician by trade, so you’re not telling me anything new about consistency in test results. To clarify, I was not referring to a single comment or line; I’m not sure which instance you are referencing. If you look at their actual test comparisons, and those of several other tool test sites, Makita is often (and as I said previously, not always) found to be close to, or exceeding their advertised specs. In contrast, some other very popular brands rarely even approach their advertised value when tested using standardized methods. That doesn’t mean those tools are bad, I own many of them, just that purchasers should do their own due diligence.
The way I see it, Makita is (unfortunately) trying to play the gimmicky marketing game that some other brands have perfected and they are massively bungling it across the board.
David Z
There are plenty of test channels out there. If Stuart mentions something I want detailed info on, I just go to sites with those specialties. I wouldn’t expect the torque channel to cover the breadth that Toolguyd does, and I don’t expect Toolguyd to do the level of testing the torque guys or Project Farm does.
blocky
I have found Makita drills, due to their gearing, sometimes stall out more easily at low rpms than Bosch or Milwaukee drills of similar spec. At low rpms, the torque falls off significantly as resistance increases and the fastener approaches its final depth. The drill may have plenty of torque to completely set the fastener, but not necessarily at low rpms, which is what I need when feathering the trigger to set the fastener by eye.
This is most pronounced in the 12v class, and also evident in the 18v subcompact drills. Moving up in drills, it becomes less apparent as torque necessary for small to medium fasteners is overwhelmingly on tap.
In general, I think Makita gears their drills and saws slightly in favor of speed, and Bosch gears their drills and saws slightly in favor of consistent torque.
The difference between max torque and max fastening torque seems to describe this observable (at least in my own hands) relationship.
IMO, if using a powerful one-size-fits-all drill, (18v in this case) I might want that 110nm for mixing a bucket with the trigger fully depressed, but 70nm should give me a familiar level of haptic feedback when setting smaller fasteners by trigger. And it doesn’t surprise me that the 40v would have very little difference between the two measurements, since it probably implements the same trigger and gearbox but with more electrons on tap.
A lot of drills (7.8v, 12v, 14.4v, 20v, etc. ) to date have had just enough power to get standard tasks done– many of us are familiar with the feel and sound of a drill stalling out due to lack of power under heavy load, and are familiar with the expressions like ‘this drill covers 90% of what I need done’.
But now 40v smokes most tasks that are the domain of handheld. If we’re thinking in real-world terms, without anti-kickback, these tools could potentially snap a human wrist — and that’s probably why that particular feature was implemented as needed.
I agree it’s frustrating that the spec sheets, apparently providing measured data, are somewhat opaque, and probably inconsistent, but I also don’t have a calibrated perception of how actual torque specs would translate to my work using these tools. A very small minority of tool users do.
Todd Cheyne
I have an 18v drill by Makita with anti kickback. Not exclusive to the 40v line
Stuart
No Makita 18V LXT cordless drill that I know has an anti-kickback safety feature. Which USA model number tool do you believe has this?
ben
i wish makita had a 18v drill with some type of jam / kickback protection 1 handed in steel up a ladder can hurt hey.
(screw driver setting is a tad weak but helps i normally start with this and when it jams switch to drill mode to carefully finish off hole)
Rob
The answer to your question is this: Makita USA is trash.
I used to try and help them out and send them corrections to their oftentimes totally messed up advertised numbers. Never did they do anything but give me attitude.