Makita has a new 18V cordless jig saw, model XVJ04, which is described as delivering “best-in-class performance and with more features.”
The saw has a new compact design, allowing it to be used in tight spaces.
It has a D-handle grip, and seems to include all of the modern features one could ask for from a brushless jig saw.
Advertisement
Makita XVJ04 Features & Specs
- Works with T-shank blades
- 3,000 SFM max speed
- 7/8″ stroke length
- Soft-start mode
- Variable speed trigger
- 3 orbital settings
- Adjustable speed dial
- Lock-on button
- Base bevels 0-45° left/right
- LED light
- Built-in dust blower
- Electric brake
- 10-1/8″ length
- Weighs 5.5 lbs with battery
Price: $189 for tool-only (XVJ04Z)
Makita 18V batteries and chargers are sold separately.
Discussion
Makita USA’s press release says that their new jig saw “offers best-in-class performance with more features,” and that it “delivers increased performance for faster and more accurate cuts in a variety of materials,” but they don’t elaborate upon this.
As for “more features,” Makita’s “additional features” section mentions a soft-start mode and two-finger variable speed trigger – features also shared by their older model, XVJ02.
The older model Makita 18V brushless jig saw, XVJ02 – which according to Amazon was first available in January 2015 (nearly 8 years ago) has a higher speed (3500 SPM vs 3000 SPM) and longer stroke length (1″ vs 7/8″). It’s slightly heavier, weighing 5.8 lbs with battery, compared to 5.5 lbs as specified in Makita’s press release.
Although the comparison images are not perfectly scales, it’s clear that the new model has a completely new geometry, with the battery positioned below the handle, as opposed to hanging off the back of the tool.
Advertisement
So, although the XVJ04 jig saw measures 10-1/8″, and the XVJ02 jig saw measures 10-1/2″, I would expect the weight distribution will be different.
I have a question:
How does this new model deliver “best-in-class performance” when the older model has a longer stroke length and can achieve faster speeds?
A longer stroke length and faster speed typically means faster cutting and application speeds, and thus higher performance. How can higher performance be achieved with a shorter stroke length and slower max speed?
Stroke length (length of sawing motion per stroke) x stroke speed (number of strokes per minute) gives you effective cutting speed.
For the XVJ04, this would be 7/8″ x 1 foot/12 inches x 3,000 SPM = 219 SFM (max).
For the XVJ02, this would be 1″ x 1 foot/12 inches x 3,500 SPM = 292 SFM (max).
Or am I missing something? How can a new tool be advertised as delivering “best-in-class performance” and “increased performance” when Makita’s nearly 8-year older model has a 33% higher max on-paper cutting speed?
Am I missing something?
I emailed Makita USA’s communications manager, asking for clarity, but have not yet heard back.
The “more features” claim also seems relative, as the PR-described soft-start and two-finger trigger features are also offered by Makita’s older XVJ02 model.
Maybe they are comparing the new model to their lower-priced brushed motor jig saws? Their D-handle XVJ03 has a 1″ stroke length and 2,600 SPM max speed, which comes out to 217 SFM. The calculated SFM for the XVJ04 (219 SFM) is less than 1% faster.
If you’re in Makita’s 18V cordless power tool system, I’d say look at this model for its seemingly improved ergonomics. Compared to the XVJ02, the XVJ04 is a little smaller and lighter.
The new model is also less expensive – it’s priced at $189 for the tool-only, compared to $289 for the older model.
It is unclear whether the XVJ04 is replacing the XVJ02, or if Makita will be selling them side by side.
Advertisement
Kevin
Your math definitely holds up, and I agree that I’m skeptical, but it also only indicates the speed when the tool isn’t under load. Let’s pretend for a second though that the performance on the new model truly is superior, regardless of what the math suggests. How would we explain that? The only logical answer I can reason is the motor/gearing/or a combination of both. If the motor and gear arrangement remains torquier at the business-end, it stands to reason the tool could maintain higher speed under load. The only way Makita’s claim can be substantiated is if the speed under load is what’s allowing faster removal of material. No load speeds aren’t reliable so I wouldn’t totally rule out the possibility that the new iteration can outpace its predecessor despite the apparent disparity when crunching the numbers.
Koko The Talking Ape
That’s a good point. If a saw stalls or bogs down under load, it doesn’t matter how fast it can hum along under no load, or how long the stroke is. That’s not the actual case with the old Makita, of course, but it shows that no-load numbers aren’t the full story.
Another possibility is is something to do with the orbital action? (Both have orbital settings, according to Makita’s website.)
And another wild idea is that the motor exerts more force on the upstroke, when jigsaws usually cut, than on the downstroke. I learned in a nice discussion in the forum that electric motors can be made to exert more force in one direction than the opposite. Jigsaw motors don’t reverse direction, but maybe this one could pull harder in one section of its cycle. I suppose the saw could even have just a spring to return the blade to full down, and would basically exert no force at all on the downstroke. But there are downcutting and bidirectional blades, which might perform WORSE with such an arrangement.
Ben
“electric motors can be made to exert more force in one direction than the opposite. ”
Mind pointing me to where you read that? That sounds like a very interesting discussion.
Stuart
Impact wrenches are a great example of this – more powerful models often advertise higher “nut-busting” reverse direction torque than forward direction fastening torque.
Ben
I’ve seen that advertised before. I just want to know more about why they’re more powerful in one direction compared to the other – seems on its face like a motor is a motor, but I guess not. Thanks!
Stuart
@Ben, I can’t find a good discussion of it. I’ve heard different ideas over the years, such as imbalanced magnetic fields, but I’m not sure how that could apply to brushless motors.
One possibility is that tools can be engineered for higher current flow depending on motor direction. Consider that ooling fans are often coupled to motor shafts.
If a fan delivers greater airflow to a motor operating in one direction than in the other, it should be able to draw more power without overheating. More current draw = greater torque delivery.
I don’t know how accurate this is, but it’s all I can offer in the absence of anything else.
James
I was under the impression that it has to do with the “cumulative tension” exerted on the work piece rather than the actual torque generated by the motor. Because torque is measured as cumulative force expended on the work piece and tightening requires more time to buildup that force. The Torque Test YouTube channel has a good explanation.
Ben
Stuart and James, thank you both for the replies. This is very interesting. I’ll have to do some more digging. Thanks again!
MM
Ben, I think that Koko is likely referring to a discussion from the Toolguyd Forum from a few months ago:
https://discuss.toolguyd.com/t/why-arent-all-brushless-tools-reversible/2854/23
There are several good articles on biasing motors by changing the timing, for both brushless and brushed motors, written for the radio control hobby. If you do an internet search for “RC motor timing” you will find several.
Stuart
@James – but what would the test joint look like?
If an impact’s max torque is tested with identical test joints save for directionality, a balanced motor should measure similar in forward and reverse directions.
By what you’re saying, the tool-reverse direction max torque would be lower when fastening a left-handed fastener than the tool-forward direction max torque when busting left-handed fasteners loose.
Is that accurate?
My understanding was that forward and reverse torque specs were absolute to the tool, and not the application.
I would think identical right and left-hand torque adapters would be used for max torque spec determination.
James
@Stuart – checkout the video by Shop Tool Reviews on this topic. They demonstrate the phenomenon using a manual torque wrench to show that higher nutbusting torque is basically an artifact of friction and thread design.
Kevin
Also the reason for “nut busting torque” being so much higher than fastening torque is because they’re saying the tool is capable of loosening a fastener that was torqued to said value. For example, if a fastener is torqued to 175 ft/lbs, it will take less torque to remove it and that’s what they’re measuring. It’s not the torque that the tool is actually exerting, it’s the torque value it can unfasten under a best case scenario. Fastening torque is basically the other side of the coin, how much torque it can actually deliver in a best case scenario.
KokoTheTalkingApe
MM has the right discussion. Napalm was telling us about motors built to exert more force in one direction in another. One way is to build magnets or coils that have more intense, concentrated fields on one pole than the other (I guess the total flux out of each side has to be the same.) But I don’t know any details.
But again, jigsaws don’t have reversing motors. It was just one way motors can behave differently than you might expect.
Kevin
It’s not actually the motor that causes the force bias. It’s typically built into the downstream drive components and in some cases it’s intentionally integrated. Asymmetric parts geometry is usually what’s responsible. Depending on the direction of rotation, there can be a disparity in actual force exerted from part to part. Depending on the arrangement can will manifest differences in axial force, thrust, etc. but you get the idea. In the case of in impact, it can be the angle the hammer dogs are machined at or which directing the impact mechanism’s spring is coiled (there’s a difference in force when compressing or spinning one way versus another). Impacts also incorporate harmonic precision to maximize efficacy under load, which is also subsequently affected. Impacts have to be “tuned” so to speak; matching an appropriate spring tension to the motor speeds. They’re much more complicated tools than people give them credit for even though on the surface it just appears to be a hammer and anvil pounding away at each other. Similar concept applies to reciprocating tools but with some differences. Helical gears are put under moments of higher and lower stress depending on what phase of the rotation they’re in when driving a reciprocating tool. Introducing a load can amplify this stress. There’s all kinds of different designs though. Cheaper tools will have not compensating measures designed in, some incorporate counterweights, there’s even some out there with a counter-rotating helical gear to cancel out a lot of those unwanted forces. Depending on how the tool is designed however, a smart engineer can try and use some of these undesirable traits convert them into a mechanical advantage wherever practically possible. Basically the point of my rambling is that a well designed mother will not have a directional bias, if it does, it’s probably a flaw. Any tool performance manifested by forward or reverse is going to come from downstream components.
Kevin
And please excuse my autocorrect typos
MM
Agreed all around.
Under no-load conditions Stuart’s analysis makes sense. I can think of two ways that the new saw could perform better under load:
1) If we assume all else is equal, the shorter stroke length should result in higher mechanical advantage at the saw blade. Thus the new saw might not bog down as much as the old saw in a cut, which could result in the surface footage being higher.
2) It’s possible the new saw has a more powerful motor which maintains higher speed under load.
Stuart
Saws with shorter stroke lengths typically have weaker motors, and those with longer stroke lengths typically have stronger motors.
For two tools built with the same motor, lower RPMs in one can allow for more torque. So, if the SAME motor was used in both saws, dialing down the RPM/SPM could potentially increase the endurance for the same stroke length, or allow for similar endurance for a longer stroke length.
However, with the same motor, there’s unlikely to be performance difference. Ideally, product engineers dial things in to where you have maximum application performance with minimal bogging-down.
BUT, reducing the stroke length and dialing down the RPM/SPM suggests a smaller or lower-rated motor is used in the new model. This would make sense, as the tool appears smaller.
If the motor speed was dialed down to allow for more torque or load endurance, why would the stroke length also be reduced to reduce the load?
The marketing claims don’t seem to have any weight behind them.
MM
I do agree with you that it’s unlikely there would be any performance difference by changing the stroke and keeping the motor the same. As you mentioned, optimizing that is something we’d expect the product design engineers to have done. But I think it was worth mentioning simply for the sake of completeness. It’s possible even though it isn’t likely.
To answer your question about why the stroke length might also be reduced? For the same reason why the RPM/SPM would be reduced for the smaller motor. The engineers may have decided that if they only lowered RPM they’d have to reduce it too much so they settled on a combination of reducing both in order to reduce load on the motor. I’d assume the engineers played around with various combinations of gear ratios and stroke lengths and settled on this particular combination of reducing both.
Stuart
Isn’t it much more likely that the older model is optimized for its motor, and the new model is optimized for its motor?
In that case, it would mean the newer motor is smaller and less powerful.
Let’s say you’re cutting 1/2″ plywood. One brand’s jig saw with a 1″ stroke length and 3500 SPM max speed should be able to perform the task faster than one from the same brand with a 7/8″ stroke length and 3000 SPM max speed.
If this is *not* true, then all of the brand’s past, present, and future specs cannot be trusted.
I think that it’s better to question marketing claims that lack backing than holding them as ironclad and questioning the specs that suggest otherwise.
If there’s context behind the claims, Makita should make them clear, just like very other cordless power tool brand.
Maybe an XGT cordless jig saw is finally on the way, and it will have as 1″ stroke length and 3500 SPM like the older model. That would help put the new 18V model into clearer context.
MM
Yes of course, it’s likely that each model is optimized for their respective motors. Again: I wasn’t attempting to discuss what I thought was likely, I was attempting to explain all possible options in a thought experiment.
In my opinion it’s a given the marketing claims are questionable, you already covered that well, not much else needs to be said in that regard.
James
I think your assertions that 1) saws with shorter strokes or lower rpms are weaker, 2) that smaller motors are inherently weaker, and 3) that rpm and stroke are the sole targets of optimization are flawed. Motors can absolutely be configured to optimize torque over rpm or stroke and that is not (necessarily) tied to motor size, especially given advances in electronic motors. For example, I just replaced the motor on a table saw with a higher HP and torque modern motor that is half the size of the older one.
It also makes A LOT of sense for the real world performance of the tool. Companies have traditionally emphasized rpm and stroke because they are numbers that people generally understand and can be easily measured. Torque is much harder to measure (for this tool class) and people are less likely to understand what exactly it means. Regarding whether this means we cannot trust all the brands specs using rpm and stroke alone, I don’t have any idea why we should have ever trusted them. They are no load numbers, but all actual use of the tool is under load. Torque largely determines how much a fixed load reduces those no load numbers. A tool with high no load rpm and stroke that bogs down as soon as it touches a work piece is NO LONGER PERFORMING AT THOSE SPECS. They are meaningless. That is why if you want you math to work, you need to measure rpm (I assume stroke would remain constant?) at specific loads.
This concept comes into play all the time with tool marketing versus actual performance. That is (one of the reasons) why Makita often performs better than their specs would suggest.
Stuart
Sow what you are saying is that specs for their new model could be truer to real-world performance than their better-on-paper specs for the older model?
While specs might not hold perfectly in real-world applications, power tool brands tend to be consistent in their testing and advertising.
One brand’s 5.5HP shop vacuum should perform better than their 4.0HP shop vacuum, even if that “HP rating” is spurious.
One brand’s 600 in-lbs and 2000 max RPM cordless drill should perform better than the same brand’s 400 in-lbs and 2000 RPM cordless drill.
One brand’s 1″ and 3500 SPM cordless jig saw should perform better than the same brand’s 7/8″ and 3000 SPM cordless jig saw.
The lower spec’ed model advertises “best-in-class performance” and “increased performance.” Is this possible? Sure, but as it contradicts expectations, it needs to be explained.
Are the claims being made by sales people who created a brand new “class” just for this jig saw, and who are comparing it to cheaper less-featured brushed motor models? Or is there are engineering advantages that Makita USA marketing haven’t made clear?
The older model has 33% greater SFM than the newer model, on-paper.
What’s more likely? That Makita based their performance claims for the new model in comparison to some other jig saw model, or that specs for the newer model are much truer to real-world performance than suggested for the older model?
“Best-in-class” compared to… “other Makita 18V cordless jig saws announced in late-2022?”
Greenworks has a 24V brushless drill that’s spec’ed at a pathetic 310 in-lbs of max torque, and is bested by entry-priced 18V models with brushed motors. Or course not all motors are alike.
James
Not what I’m saying. Both specs are accurate, but they are incomplete representations of performance. The advantage *could* (since all the torque discussion is speculating that this model might be distinguished by higher torque, something we have no data on) be in the amount of torque generated and thus not obvious from the specs typically used for marketing.
By your examples:
1) Why are there shopvacs with the same HP but different suction performance? It is a different performance metric.
2) What about when one drill (if a hammer drill or we include impact drivers) has a different impact force/pattern? E.g., triple hammer vs double hammer impact drivers? In this case torque (in-lbs) and rpm might not capture the performance difference.
3) what if the 1″ stroke jigsaw slows to 2000 rpm when you try to cut anything with it? Will it still cut faster than the 7/8″ stroke saw that maintains 3000 rpm?
Jorge Janero
Si es posible que ese sea el aspecto mecánico a tomar en cuenta,.pienso lo mismo…Seguramente el nuevo modelo realiza mejor el corte en condiciones de motor bajo carga.
Stacey Jones
Well there’s a $100 difference, so perhaps that’s the separate classes? Just a guess…
Munklepunk
Makita has been lowering the max speed on a few of their new tools, but upping the torque so they can hold a consistent speed.
Stuart
The tool is more compact, and the stroke length shorter, which could suggest a smaller motor.
James
Which has nothing to do with the torque output of the motor…
xu lu
Do folks really care what PR flacks say anymore? If you need a jig saw and are tied to Makita, you will compare their offerings and pick one based on some specs and price. If you have one and are tied to Makita, you would assess whether this tool represents a quantum improvement over your current tool in some area that you highly value-it likely doesnt. Finally if you use another system, you would assess whether this tool is so good that you should buy into another system platform-again it likely isnt.
Cordless has changed the dynamics of purchasing for most. The system is what matters and the tools need only be about as good as the best of breed to stick with your system. Rarely does a breakthrough occur where one tool is so good it causes someone to expand to another system. Would love to hear what those tools are have been for readers.
Seems clear this is a fine enough offering that wouldnt cause a user to expand platforms.
David Butler
I agree that once you’re hooked into a battery system you tend to stick – I went Makita on the basis of some tear down reviews on you tube and have only had Makita – until a few weeks ago when I bought some of the back and yellow stuff. Why? Because they do a superb 1st fix battery nail gun ( pure battery – not gas + battery). I wish Makita had done a battery 1st fix, but now I’ve got some black and yellow batteries I wouldn’t be so reluctant to get more of their stuff if required.
Jared
If you’re not getting information from a press release and Makita won’t answer questions from the media – where should a consumer get information from?
Sure, tying yourself to a platform might limit what choices you think are reasonable – but there’s got to be a point where a consumer still want to know how a tool performs before making a purchase. If the new Makita jigsaw is bad and they discontinue the better one – maybe someone invested in the line might still decide to jump ship.
Bonnie
Ryobi’s cordless brad nailer was good enough (at release) to get me to buy it despite having everything else Makita. I ended up being given some other random Ryobi tools which I passed along to someone else. The single great tool wasn’t enough to get me to change systems, and I eventually got a converter so I could put other tool batteries on the Ryobi nailer.
I also ended up going with a DeWalt 20V weedwhacker after trying out the Ryobi 40V and the Makita 18V competitors and being disappointed in both. The difference may not have been night-and-day, but I was more willing to split my battery brands than deal with a crappy tool. I’m mostly a DIY and woodshop user, so I don’t tend to wear out batteries (my oldest Makita 18v li pack is seven years old and still works fine).
Kingsley
I wonder will there be a 40V version for people who’ve bought into that line? P
Stuart
That’s a big hole they have yet to fill,
Munklepunk
They have a 40v barrel grip, but who knows when we will get it.
Koko The Talking Ape
I’m liking the shorter length. It had never occurred to me that compactness might be important in a jigsaw, but I was helping a friend with a kitchen remodel, and there was a corner under a cabinet where I just couldn’t get my big Bosch jigsaw to make the turn. It was too long. And we couldn’t get a recip in there either.
And maybe it’s not a big deal, but better weight distribution is a good thing too.
Julian Tracy
Their previous jigsaws were made in the UK – no doubt this new cheaper one is made in China. That explains the price difference.
Has Makita introduced ANY must-have tools in the last few years? A long string of un-interesting duds if you ask this long-time heavily invested daily Makita user.
Stuart
Retail listings say made in China.
Russty B
Same. And Agreed.
LK
Depends on how you define must-have? I can’t think of anything that Dewalt/Milwaukee/Flex have that are must-haves for me.
Every brand has unique advantages and offerings, but must-have is subjective.
Julian Tracy
Dewalt’ s inflator vs Makita – the Dewalt auto-inflates, the Mak you have to sit with it.
Dewalt’s lower profile cordless sander’s vs Mak’s monstrosity of un-ergonomic design 5” cordless.
Milwaukee’s M12 pin nailer that actually sinks the nails vs Mak’s TWO versions – first of which was useless and 2nd of which still isn’t that powerful.
Mak’s 18v 18ga nail gun – have you SEEN that tool?!
And now XGT – the platform NO makita guy was looking for…
Tom
So true! I have only been more than happy with my Makita 18 volt collection. Their unwillingness to introduce newer higher capacity batteries (21700 cells) or even a # amp compact 18 volt battery (18650) has me starting a new collection.
I don’t want 40 volt and large batteries on most of my tools!
More and more I’m an ergonomics guy and I want to use COMFORTABLE well made tools. And I want COMPACT batteries. 3 & 4 Amp compact 18 volt batteries and compact 18 volt tools are where my money goes these days.
I think Dewalt with their Atomic line and newer compact power stack batteries are the sweet spot. (Although I’m not invested in any of then)
I’ve been collecting some green tools lately. A nice 3 amp slim 18 volt battery for the 18 volt line and some beefier 36 volt options with cross compatibility. I’m using their 36 volt 9.5 lb worm drive saw now and It’s my favorite saw. Smooth like Makita’s saws with great power!
Oh yea, It’s over two pounds lighter than any other saw on the market!
LK
Also, personally this is a recent must-have: https://www.makitatools.com/products/tools/cordless/40v-xgt/specialty/dust-blowers
Pretty sure this is first-in-class and I’ve seen a lot of good press around it.
Matt
I’m just happy to see an updated tool design, other than a minimally changed impact driver, in the LXT line. Before this it seemed like only the XGT line was getting real improvements, it gives me hope we will see some updated features in the LXT line eventually.
Although, maybe his is the beginning of Makita turning LXT into a cheaper homeowner line.
Ct451
It’s not really a new design. It’s based on the 12v version which was out 5 years ago:
https://www.amazon.co.jp/Makita-JV103DZ-Rechargeable-Jigsaw-Puzzle/dp/B075GJ1HV5
Chris
I just ordered one yesterday off amazon for $174 so i jumped on it.
For me its the 0-3000 spm where as the last brushless model is 800-3500. I find sometimes that start at 800 spm annoying like on my sub-compact sawzall. I was all set to order the older brushed model until i saw this one was coming out, well see how slow it can start.
Some tools dont need that low of a start like a brushed motor can, but a jigsaw is not one of them.
bj
Agreed. I had the XVJ02 for a few years and disliked the fact that 1) I couldn’t feather the trigger, 2) the stupid soft start, and 3) the power button. I mean, if they just designed the saw from 0-3500 with maybe a mechanical safety instead of the power button, then it would have been much more tolerable. I hated that thing so much that I sold and replaced it with the oldest dinosaur brushed version.
Chris
This supposably has a power button also, should be ok still having the trigger. I’m guessing a few of their tools for safty incorporate this now. It not too bad and understandable on the router at least, hedge trimmer also.
Nathan
sorry but I have to – where is the 40 volt and the 64 volt models?
OK as said above the only thing they don’t address and very few people do would be to say if that speed and stroke is under load.
If they did the same sort of rating like Xm of 1/2 ply cut per minute at speed ___ or something like that. Harder to pin down as – gee what blade tooth, etc.
but it’s be something to go on. I suspect – but only suspect that it probalby does cut faster over all if only because it maintains torque like the other EC brushless devices do
Bonnie
Does anyone make a 60/64v Jigsaw? I can’t imagine where you’d even want that weight/power for this kind of tool. I think Hitachi/Metabo/HiKoki have the only currently available 36v Jigsaw after DeWalt discontinued their old one.
Nathan
sorry it was a joke at makita’s expense. no reason I can think of to have a higher voltage jigsaw. unless it had the option to mount to a table as a table/scroll saw – in that case it might be worth a bigger battery setup.
but you know – crazy idea.
MM
I think talking about 60V is a bit of a joke, but asking about the 40V is valid. Makita just got done telling us that their 40V platform is going to be the new standard that will “do everything” going forward. If that platform is going to do everything then it needs a jigsaw!
Imagine the following scenario: you’re new to the trades or DIY. You you know you want to buy some cordless power tools but you’re not sure which brand to pick. You read up on all the various platforms from the big names…you decide to go with Makita thanks to their proven track record and wide selection of tools. You read about Makita’s product line and you go with XGT: after all, that’s what the marketing schtick says is the best system. The newest system. The one that’s good for everything. And it’s not just marketing, that makes a bit of logical sense too: going forward, wouldn’t it make more sense to invest in a newer platform instead of one that’s already half-obsolete? Sounds great so far. But then you learn that Makita’s new jigsaw came out for the old LXT system instead. I know that if I were in that position I’d be quite irritated to put it mildly.
bj
Somebody on Reddit posted a pic an XGT jigsaw, and Tools & Stuff’s latest video shows a barrel grip XGT.
Michael
Does anyone actually like the “soft start” feature because I personally can’t stand it and have stopped using the saw completely because of it. As a finish carpenter and for any type of carpenter/woodworker, I see it being useless and causing damage to my work. The slow start has two major negative impacts: 1) The saw blade tends to grab the material which then lifts the base off the piece you’re working on affecting your control of the saw. 2) It grabs the material and damages the piece immediately.
There’s zero common sense to add this feature. Mikita should trust the people using their tools to know what speed they want to be using on the saw rather than forcing them to start “slow”.
Chris
Is the soft start option a selectable mode on the higher priced model? I sure hope it is on this new one.
Harrison
There are plenty of tools from Makita that stand above their competitors, but their brushless jigsaw is absolutely not one of them.
Almost everything is wrong with the XVJ02… The horrible speed ramping soft start, the non-variable speed trigger, the awful ergonomics of the ‘safety’ button that can’t quite be reached with your thumb, no place to hook up a dust extractor. Plenty of power- perhaps even too much power- but all undermined by one of the most unpleasant user experiences of any premium tool.
How hard is it to make a jigsaw without messing it up? The older brushed DJV180Z model is just so much better in actual use, with a nice tactile safety button and variable speed trigger.
Stuart, I think this new XVJ04 is not meant to replace the XVJ02 ‘flagship’, but to slot in beneath it as a lighter and cheaper option. Typical asleep at the wheel Makita, but the performance claims are probably against their older brushed model.
Sean
I don’t think XVJ02 has soft start (at least I can’t find it listed on any of the marketing) so that might be the ‘more feature’ on the XVJ04. Pretty weak, regardless.
Though it seems like XVJ04’s biggest ‘feature’ is that it has been economized for a lower price point, matching that of other brands’. Most notably it’s missing the metal gearcase of the XVJ02 (every other brand’s jigsaws have gotten rid of the metal gearcases too).
It also looks slimmer in the gearcase area than XVJ02 and other jigsaws with a 1 inch stroke, and stroke length should be directly proportional to the width of the main gear in there, so perhaps the reduced stroke was a purposeful choice to make the tool more compact than the competition? Though I’m unsure how advantageous that would be.
It also looks like it shares most of its parts with the 12v VJ06 jigsaw, with the same stroke length, so this might literally just be the VJ06 with a different motor and/or controller for use with 18v. Maybe they will release a ground-up 18v design later with specs that are more competitive with other brand’s 18v jigsaws.
Chris
“No-load speed reduction feature automatically reduces SPM for more accurate cutting starts”
This is what it says on their site, I’m guessing this is not a mode one can choose to not use.
Hopefully it is selectable on this new model or ill return it.
Anthony
XVJ02 Made in United Kingdom 🤗
XVJ04 Made in China 🤔
I agree with the newest ‘feature’ for this model is being economized. An affordable brushless jigsaw to stay competitive in the market. I hope that the design changes doesn’t affect long term durability.
I personally would pay more to get the XVJ02 because of the metal gearcase.
Franco
I am one who dislikes all the battery platforms Makita has come up with. When XGT was first announced, being heavily invested in the LXT line, I thought for sure that we (LXT users) would slowly get shafted as they would introduce more XGT and slowly phase out new LXT products.
I am happy to say that for now, they have not overlooked LXT in favor of XGT.
I understand Stuart’s frustration with Makita when they are tight lipped and do not respond much to questions. That is their marketing dept and it sucks, but I care about the tool.
Having used (and own) many of the competitors in whatever tool it may be, I typically find that overall, Makita LXT offering to be my favorite.
There are many good attributes of M18, Dewalt, as well as the other players. What I find is that if you are working on whatever, and I had a table with saws, drills, grinders and other tools represented from each brand, 80-90% of the time I would grab the Makita; to me they are my choice and trust this jigsaw to be good. Until I have got burned a couple of times by choosing a Makita, they will continue to be my trusted go to.
They are smooth, well-conceived, ergonomics, power and all things combined, they usually are near the top in all categories.
I already have a Makita jigsaw, but if I didn’t, I would not hesitate to get this. Of course, I would check reviews and if the general consensus said it was a real dud, then that would be different. But when I check reviews and the Makita does good but the M18 (example) was faster or more powerful, I don’t care…I would go with Makita.
Stuart
As consumers, we are inundated with bogus and hyped-up marketing claims all the time.
When a company boasts about “best-in-class, performance” and it doesn’t make sense, it needs to be explained. When a company boasts “improved performance,” but the specs suggest otherwise, it needs to be explained.
It’s my job to ask questions, and every other cordless power tool brand – even Harbor Freight! – would answer the same questions clearly and honestly.
With this new jig saw, unless or until someone can prove or explain otherwise, I still believe its smaller size is the main selling point. The shift in battery position should also be an improvement with respect to weight-balance and control. On paper, it should perform better than lower priced brushed motor tools, but not as well as their other 18V D-handle brushless model.
And if this is true, they should say exactly this.
Franco
I understand where you are coming from, and do not say you are wrong.
My guess is that Makita, unlike Dewalt, Milwaukee and other brands that are owned by conglomerates, Makita is….just Makita. Thier roots are Japanese, which can be a conservative culture (not politically, I mean in a reserved kind of way). Maybe the HQ in Japan dictates everything worldwide and ultimately does not want any of the worldwide office to say anything that did not come from HQ.
This is just a guess on my part, and not trying to defend how their marketing is, just offering what could be a possible reason they are like this.
Stuart
The size or corporate structure doesn’t matter. Milwaukee answers questions fantastically (e.g. https://toolguyd.com/cordless-sds-rotary-hammer-drilling-sizes/ ). Ryobi and Ridgid are managed by TTI North America. It’s never “TTI” that I talk with, it’s Milwaukee or TTINA. It’s a conglomerate with discrete tool brands and companies. Dewalt is different, but I can always reach someone who will give me exact engineering explanations behind any claims.
Metabo HPT, a Japanese brand with USA efforts, also does a great job in answering questions.
Many brands occasionally make claims that warrant explanation, but then they thoroughly explain those claims when asked.
Companies that value accuracy and straight marketing don’t seem to have any problem answering media/press questions, regardless as to corporate structuring or culture.
Chris
So my xvj04 showed up last night, not much time with it but its a keeper for me!
The soft start can be turned on and off by setting the dial to 1, turn on and set to 5, light blinks, or reverse to turn off. Mine came disabled.
Triggle has an 1/8th” of slack and then blade moves nice and slow or fast if you pull all the way.
Looks like all the optional accessories that fit the xvj02 fit this as well.
I also like the on/auto off button vs a Manual safety switch.