Independent check result: mostly consistent, but there are two assumptions worth flagging/confirming: footprint pad orientation/rotation, and whether the footprint coordinate system matches the datasheet “top view” numbering.
What matches the datasheet1. Metadata
Given metadata appears consistent with the datasheet:
MPN:NX2016SA-52MHZ-EXS00A-CS06016
Manufacturer: NDK
Description:CRYSTAL 52MHZ 8PF SMD
Package/body: 2.0 × 1.6 × 0.45 mm
4-terminal SMD crystal
No obvious metadata mismatch.
2. Electrical terminal assignment
Datasheet says:
#1, #3: X’tal terminals
#2, #4: connected to metal cover, should connect to GND
Flux symbol:
Table
Flux terminal
Pin number
Function
CRYSTAL_1
1
X’tal
GND_1
2
Cover / GND
CRYSTAL_2
3
X’tal
GND_2
4
Cover / GND
This matches the datasheet electrically.
3. Pad center spacing
Footprint pads:
Table
Pad
Position
1
−0.675, +0.525
2
+0.675, +0.525
3
+0.675, −0.525
4
−0.675, −0.525
This gives center spacing:
X direction: 0.675 - (-0.675) = 1.35 mm
Y direction: 0.525 - (-0.525) = 1.05 mm
That matches the extracted datasheet land pattern center spacing: 1.35 mm × 1.05 mm.
So the pad placement pitch is likely correct.
Things to flag / challenge1. Pad size and rotation may be ambiguous
You stated KiCad pads are:
size 0.750 × 0.850 rot90
This needs careful interpretation.
If the intended land size from the datasheet is 0.75 mm × 0.85 mm, then the footprint is correct only if the effective copper pad after rotation still matches the intended orientation.
In KiCad, a rectangular pad with size 0.750 x 0.850 and rotation 90° will usually render as an effective pad of approximately:
0.850 mm in X
0.750 mm in Y
rather than:
0.750 mm in X
0.850 mm in Y
Depending on how Flux imported or represents the rotation, this could mean the pad dimensions are swapped relative to the datasheet’s intended land pattern.
This is the main thing I would flag.
Recommended verification:
Confirm from the original NDK land pattern drawing which dimension corresponds to horizontal pad width and which corresponds to vertical pad height.
For a 2.0 × 1.6 mm package with center spacing 1.35 × 1.05 mm, a likely interpretation is:
pad width in X: 0.75 mm
pad height in Y: 0.85 mm
If so, then a KiCad pad declared 0.750 x 0.850 rot90 may be wrong unless the rotation is intentionally compensating for a local pad axis convention.
2. Pin/pad orientation depends on coordinate-system interpretation
The datasheet terminal land connections are given in top view. You listed symbol positions as:
#1 top-left
#2 top-right
#3 bottom-right
#4 bottom-left
The footprint positions are:
#1: −X, +Y
#2: +X, +Y
#3: +X, −Y
#4: −X, −Y
This matches the datasheet if +Y corresponds to “top” in the footprint view.
However, coordinate systems differ:
In many PCB/CAD contexts, visual “up” may correspond to positive Y.
In KiCad footprint files, coordinates are commonly interpreted in a screen-like or board coordinate context where Y direction can appear inverted depending on viewer/importer.
Flux’s rendered SVG uses a scale(1,-1) transform, which can make raw coordinate sign vs visual top/bottom easy to misread.
So I would not blindly conclude the orientation is correct just from the coordinate signs. I would visually confirm the pad numbering marker relative to pad #1 and compare against the datasheet top-view drawing.
That said, if the Flux/footprint display shows pad #1 at the physical top-left, pad #2 top-right, pad #3 bottom-right, and pad #4 bottom-left, then orientation is correct.
3. GND pins are correctly named, but users should understand they are not oscillator electrodes
The GND_1 and GND_2 terminal names are acceptable and useful, but these are not crystal electrodes. They are metal cover/shield connections.
This is not a mismatch, but I would perhaps document it as:
Pin 2: cover/shield, connect to GND
Pin 4: cover/shield, connect to GND
This avoids someone later thinking the device has two functional ground pins internally connected to the resonator circuit.
VerdictNo clear datasheet mismatch found for:
MPN
manufacturer
body size
4-pad package
electrical pin assignment
pin numbering sequence, assuming the footprint top view is correct
pad center spacing
Flag for manual confirmation:
Pad size orientation:0.750 × 0.850 rot90 may swap the intended land dimensions. Confirm whether final copper is 0.75 × 0.85 in the same orientation as the NDK land pattern.
Top-view orientation: confirm that pad #1 is truly top-left in the rendered footprint relative to the pin-1 marker and datasheet top view.
Shield pins: #2 and #4 should be marked as cover/shield GND, not crystal electrodes. Current naming is probably fine.
If the rendered footprint shows pad #1 top-left and the effective pad copper dimensions match the NDK land pattern, then I would consider the part project correct.
Reviewed the part metadata, existing Datasheet URL, symbol terminals, and footprint against the datasheet; no Datasheet URL update was needed because one was already set. Full details are in Part Datasheet Review.
Open items:
No blocking mismatch found.
Pin descriptions / pin types are currently missing or unspecified metadata.
Pad size values match numerically, but the 90° pad rotation should be visually confirmed before release.
Suggested next steps:
Update terminal pin descriptions for pins 1–4.
Confirm rendered copper pad orientation against the NDK land-pattern drawing.
Optionally verify the suffix-specific 8 pF order-code value from the official order-code table.