2019 Cadillac XT4 vs 2019 Honda CR-V

The 2019 Cadillac XT4 started with a new 2.0-liter, turbocharged engine that delivered 237 horsepower and 258 lb-ft of torque, paired with a 9-speed automatic transmission promising a spirited ride. It featured an extra-short first gear for quick torque burst at takeoffs while maintaining a tall final gear to provide a competitive 27 mpg in front-wheel-drive (FWD) format.

The base Luxury trim of the XT4 had a starting MSRP of $34,795. It offered luxury features like LED headlights, keyless entry and ignition with remote start, dual-zone automatic climate controls, a 7-speaker stereo with satellite radio, and an 8-inch touchscreen. However, some expected luxury features such as auto wipers and mirrors, a driver memory system, parking sensors, blind-spot monitoring, and a power liftgate were missing unless one upgraded to the Premium Luxury trim starting at $39,295.

The highest tier, Sport trim, which was tested, included all base features along with LED turn signals and front cornering lamps, a sport steering wheel, sport front seats, and unique faux leather. The All-Wheel Drive (AWD) version tested brought the price to $41,795. The options list featured a $2,450 Comfort and Convenience package, a $1,550 dual-pane sunroof, and several other packages, pushing the final price to a considerable $57,135.

On the other hand, the 2019 Honda CR-V offered four trim levels: LX, EX, EX-L, and Touring, priced between $24,350 and $34,150 plus destination charges. The CR-V LX came with 17-inch aluminum wheels as standard, while higher trims featured body-color trim, bigger 18-inch wheels, and rear privacy glass, providing an upscale look.

The CR-V's exterior, despite its front styling, was generally appealing. The interior materials and construction were of good quality, with a practical control layout and an aesthetically pleasing two-tone tan-over-black treatment. Despite the presence of hard plastics, the CR-V managed to avoid a cheap feel.

The 2019 Cadillac XT4's turbocharged engine was robust, delivering 258 lb-ft of torque from 1,500 to 4,000 rpm and a peak of 237 hp at 5,000 rpm. This turbo power, combined with the 9-speed automatic transmission, handled the slight power gap effectively, offering a competitive 27 mpg combined in FWD. However, the short first gear could quickly overpower the front wheels, making AWD a recommended choice, albeit lowering the combined mileage to 24 mpg.

Unfortunately, the XT4's transmission experienced frequent shifts in low-speed driving, complicating acceleration smoothness, particularly in stop-and-go traffic. This issue, common in vehicles with smaller turbocharged engines matched with multi-speed transmissions, could potentially be resolved with a V6 engine. However, the XT4's 2.0-liter required careful finessing of the accelerator to maintain smooth driving.

Additionally, the Cadillac's adaptive sport suspension, along with mechanical torque vectoring, allowed the XT4 to handle corners proficiently. Yet, the 20-inch wheels required for this setup adversely affected ride quality, making 18-inch wheels a preferable option for overall comfort.

Conversely, the Honda CR-V LX came with a 2.4-liter 4-cylinder engine producing 184 horsepower at 6,400 rpm and 180 lb-ft of torque at 3,900 rpm, coupled with a CVT and available in both FWD and AWD. Higher trims like the EX, EX-L, and Touring were powered by a turbocharged 1.5-liter 4-cylinder engine, producing 190 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 179 lb-ft of torque between 2,000 and 5,000 rpm.

The smaller turbocharged engine provided more responsive and satisfying acceleration compared to the non-turbo 2.4-liter engine. However, issues like engine misfires in cold weather and potential battery problems were noted. Despite these, the turbo 1.5-liter engine offered a better driving experience, and during testing, it achieved an average of 27.7 mpg, slightly below the EPA’s estimate of 29 mpg combined.

Real Time 4WD systems in the CR-V operated mainly in FWD, transferring up to 40% power to the rear wheels when necessary, primarily designed for extra traction rather than off-roading. With up to 8.2 inches of ground clearance, the CR-V was well-suited for various driving conditions.

Driving dynamics were supported by a MacPherson strut front suspension and multi-link double wishbone rear suspension, providing a stable and smooth ride. The dual-pinion, variable-ratio electric steering offered ease of handling at low speeds and gained commendable heft with increased speed, while braking performance remained reliable and robust even under demanding conditions.

The Cadillac XT4's design and construction were satisfactory for its price segment, with fewer instances of GM parts bin appearances. Interior space was generous for front and rear passengers, even accommodating those over 6 feet tall. The trunk provided 22.5 cubic feet of cargo space, expandable to 49.8 cubic feet with the rear seats folded, a respectable space but moderate amongst competitors.

The XT4's optional features were a sticking point. Advanced safety options, which competitors often included as standard, added significantly to the XT4’s price. Even fully equipped, the XT4 lacked some basic convenience features like auto-up rear windows, creating potential dissatisfaction for cost-conscious consumers.

In contrast, the Honda CR-V excelled in form and function. The front passenger seat's lack of height adjustment was a drawback. However, the driver’s seat offered 12-way power adjustment, and heating featured across all but the base trim. A heated steering wheel was also available for an additional $500.

Rear seat accommodations were spacious, with air vents and USB ports keeping passengers, including taller adults, comfortable. Cargo space was a highlight, with 39.2 cubic feet behind the back seats, expandable to 75.8 cubic feet with the seats folded, surpassing the Cadillac XT4 and many other compact crossovers.

The Cadillac XT4 replaced its touch-sensitive panels with traditional buttons, creating a more user-friendly experience. The 8-inch touchscreen equipped with Cadillac’s CUE infotainment system provided Android Auto and Apple CarPlay as standard features, along with some USB-C ports. Despite these improvements, most of XT4's technological features were optional, increasing the total cost significantly.

Rear visibility was limited due to thick C-pillars and a sharply raked rear window, necessitating an optional rear-view mirror camera feed. The necessity of paying extra to correct design flaws did not sit well with many potential buyers.

For the CR-V, technology improved with each trim level. Starting with the EX, upgraded infotainment with a 7-inch touchscreen, SiriusXM, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, and HondaLink services were included. Navigation was optional in the EX-L trim and standard in Touring, along with a premium sound system.

Although improved, the CR-V’s infotainment system had drawbacks, such as the absence of a tuning knob and a limited 7-inch screen. The system could be distracting, requiring specific voice prompts and demonstrating occasional functionality issues.

The Cadillac XT4 had not been tested by NHTSA or IIHS, which was disappointing. Although it offered impressive optional safety systems, the high cost of accessing these features meant budget-conscious families were likely to find themselves missing out on essential safety technologies.

Conversely, the Honda CR-V included Honda Sensing, a suite of advanced safety features, as standard except for the LX trim. This package comprised adaptive cruise control, forward-collision warning with automatic emergency braking, lane-departure warning and lane-keeping assist, and road-departure mitigation. EX trims and above also featured blind-spot monitoring and rear cross-traffic alert.

Though the technology in the CR-V worked adequately, it often fell short compared to systems in other vehicles, particularly in lane-keeping assist. Despite this, the CR-V earned the IIHS Top Safety Pick award, which assured its excellent crash protection capabilities, save for an Acceptable rating for headlight performance.