2007 Lincoln MKZ AWD

2007 Lincoln MKZ AWD - After one year on the market, and just as people might be starting to wrap their heads around what a Lincoln Zephyr is, the company is putting the nameplate back on the shelf, next to Versailles. From here on, new Lincolns will wear the letters MK, and a third letter — be it an X, an S, or in this case, a Z — will denote the model. Unlike the Mark LT pickup, the MK isn’t short for “mark” but is pronounced by the letters themselves, as in “M K.”

The change from Zephyr to MKZ is a bit more involved than simply slapping a different chromed badge onto the Lincoln’s rump. Several real alterations, from chassis tweaks to powertrain improvements, make the ’07 MKZ more than just a marketing experiment. Ford’s new 263-hp, 3.5-liter V-6 now resides under the hood — Lincoln’s more plebeian brethren, the Mercury Milan and the Ford Fusion, will have to wait at least until 2008 to get the larger engine.

At the track, the MKZ’s extra 42 ponies didn’t make it any faster than the Zephyr. Quarter-mile and 0-to-60 times were identical to those of a front-wheel-drive Zephyr we tested in April 2006. The MKZ has 267 more pounds to carry than did the Zephyr (due primarily to the AWD system), but its 14.5-pounds-per-horsepower power-to-weight ratio is still better than the Zephyr’s 16.0 pounds per horsepower. Identical gearing in both cars leads us to believe our MKZ might have been an unusually weak example or that the added friction and rotational inertia of the all-wheel drive sapped a significant chunk of life from the new engine. However, when a 4528-pound Ford Edge SEL Plus AWD with two more horsepower runs 0 to 60 in 7.6 seconds — only 0.3 second longer than the 715-pound-lighter sedan — one wonders why the MKZ wasn’t faster.

The rest of the MKZ carries over largely unchanged from the Zephyr. Optional wood trim dresses up the plasticky multihued interior that would benefit from more precise fits — the door panels still feel as if they could be pulled apart easily. Switchgear lifted from Ford’s parts bin looks down-market, but the optional ($2495) touch-screen navigation system works intuitively and easily.

Our loaded MKZ wore a price of $35,445, thousands less than a comparably equipped Lexus ES350. The MKZ is a more entertaining car to drive than the ES350, but this is like choosing your mother over your grandmother in a wet-T-shirt contest — neither is really suited for the pursuit. In this price range, driving enthusiasts would be looking at an Audi A4, BMW 3-series, Cadillac CTS, or Infiniti G35, whereas luxury seekers would be smart to consider the ES350. Somewhere in the middle lies the jack of sedans, the MKZ.

2008 Cadillac CTS

2008 Cadillac CTS - GM’s confidence is so high that it flew a passel of 2008 CTSs from Detroit to Germany—at a cost between $20,000 and $30,000 each—to be test-driven by the motoring press on the highly challenging Nürburg­ring racetrack, just as it did six years ago with the original CTS, the first model to bear the knife-edged art-and-science design language of 21st-century Cadillac.

Since the CTS spent extensive development time on the tortuous 12.9 miles of Nürburgring pavement, we asked lead development engineer Rob Kotarak how many laps he’d turned there. Quite a few, he said, but all of them from the passenger seat. That’s because he hasn’t acquired GM’s top driving certification and therefore is not allowed to drive at the German track. Meanwhile, a first-timer from Car and Driver gets to lap freely—what was that about a bureaucracy? Just so you know, Mr. Kotarak, your car is quite adept.

The ’08 CTS retains a 113.4-inch wheelbase but adds 1.5 inches in overall length and swells almost two inches in width as do its front and rear track. That extra width means not only more handling prowess but much improved proportions as well. There were times when the first-gen CTS could look a bit awkward; it seemed tall and narrow from behind and not that desirable in profile. But there’s no bad view of the new car, from its attention-grabbing front end and better-integrated vertical headlights and taillights to its muscular fender flares.

Tops on the CTS’s mechanical upgrade list is a 304-hp, 3.6-liter direct-injection DOHC V-6 that also resides in the ’08 STS. This new engine is, for now, the top choice and will likely cost $1000 more than the base non-direct-injected 258-hp version of this 3.6-liter mill that is carried over from the outgoing model. The old base engine, a 210-hp, 2.8-liter V-6, is dropped for the U.S. All-wheel drive is offered for the first time, but only with an automatic transmission.

In relaxed driving, the new V-6 is smooth and quite muted, as Cadillac has attacked the noise problem in just about every way—triple door seals, sound-deadening covers on the engine and high-pressure fuel pump, and numerous other acoustical treatments. But push a little harder, and the engine starts to sing at about 4000 rpm, pulling enthusiastically to the 7000-rpm redline. Our 304-hp manual ran 0 to 60 mph in 5.8 seconds and blew through the quarter-mile in 14.6 at 97 mph, more than a second quicker in the sprint and 0.6 second fleeter through the quarter than the last non-V CTS we tested. That’s quick enough to run with a Mercedes C350 or BMW 328i, but a twin-turbo 335i reaches 60 mph a full second quicker.

These tires, although in an almost too modest 235/50R-18 size (Cadillac promises larger wheels are coming), are a part of the most aggressive suspension package, called FE3. All three suspension choices use the same spring rates, but the FE3 option includes larger brakes and anti-roll bars as well as revised dampers. The others, FE1 and FE2, ride on all-season tires.

We spent most of our three days in Germany with the sportiest FE3 package, and the most impressive thing about the ’08 CTS is its ride-and-handling balance. Tightly controlled body movements keep it buttoned down, and the rear-drive CTS’s ride never feels harsh, either. Even in full-blown Nürburgring mode, the car is balanced, and not once did it respond with excessive understeer, although oversteer is hard to come by as well.

On the street, our initial impression is that the CTS is more comfortable than a Sport-package-equipped BMW 3-series or Infiniti G35 without giving up much ultimate performance, although rain during our testing day kept us from verifying Cadillac’s skidpad claim of 0.86 g.

2007 Cadillac Escalade AWD

2007 Cadillac Escalade AWD - Our Slade began life with a base price of $58,125. For that we got a 403-hp, 6.2-liter Vortec V-8; a six-speed heavy-duty automatic; all-wheel drive; automatically adjusting shocks and rear leveling; and 18-inch wheels. The Escalade also had heated front- and second-row bucket seats and a third row for two passengers (a no-cost option for the second row, too; a three-passenger bench is standard). Three months of XM radio came with the Bose audio system, and the power liftgate was wonderfully convenient. Standard safety features included curtain airbags, stability control, rear parking assist, and tire-pressure monitors.

We had a mystifying oil-change experience. The service intervals are determined electronically. The first alert came in midsummer at 9800 miles. Changing the oil and the oil filter and a tire rotation ran $61. The next came at 17,600 miles ($88), and then, oddly, the third service wasn’t signaled until 18,700 miles later, at 36,200 ($61). We suspect the SUV’s electronics somehow got reset out of order. GM says an 18,700-mile gap between oil changes is “possible but not likely.” The $210 total was welcome, and there has been no indication of harm to the vehicle. Checking a couple years’ worth of long-term reports, that amount is the lowest we’ve recorded (except for BMWs, which come with free service for four years or 50,000 miles).

At 10,400 miles, we had to repair the rear wiper, which had broken off in a carwash. The other unscheduled service was at 34,800 miles. The serpentine belt had become noisy, and the Slade’s handling was wonky (no doubt the result of off-roading in the U.P.). The belt was replaced under warranty. We footed the bill for a front-end alignment and the replacement of a dented wheel (at $862 per fancy chromed wheel plus $286 per tire, you’ll want to avoid this). The drivers’ logbook was full of comments, pro and con. Let’s cover the bad news first. For a $66,730 truck, we’d have liked auto-up windows in addition to auto down, and a telescoping steering wheel. The wheel does tilt, but only in that finitely robotic GM-parts-bin way.

The loudest complaint had to do with the lack of interior room for passengers and their belongings. Whenever we were challenged to park the sizable Escalade, we would console ourselves with this thought: “Wow, we can take all our stuff along on our trip and take a few friends and their stuff, too.” Think again, though, because the bulky third-row seats must be removed (and they are heavy!) to make room for more than a weekend’s worth of luggage, and at that point, the Escalade becomes a four-passenger conveyance.

The Escalade is a fashionable ride, no doubt about that, and it looks terrific in Black Raven and all that chromed trim. If Cadillac could reconfigure the interior space to better accommodate six people, the handsome Escalade would have “utility” covered as well.

2008 Subaru Tribeca Limited

2008 Subaru Tribeca Limited - The folks at Subaru tell us that buyers of their first-ever full-size crossover perceived the, uh, distinctive styling of the B9 Tribeca to be cool. But after just two years on the market, the Tribeca gets a big face lift, a look that’s a distinct retreat from the offbeat original. What’s up with that?

There’s more here than mere cosmetic surgery. Subaru has reworked the original flat-six engine (lifted from the Legacy parts bin), increasing the bore 2.8 millimeters and the stroke by 11, which raises the displacement from 3.0 liters to 3.6. More displacement, plus variable valve timing on both cams, equals more muscle: 256 horsepower and 247 pound-feet of torque versus the 245 horsepower and 219 pound-feet of the smaller six.

More muscle equals more go: With a curb weight of 4230 pounds, essentially the same as the B9 Tribeca we tested in July 2005, the updated version smoothes its way to 60 mph in 7.7 seconds and the quarter-mile in 16.1 at 87 mph. The original recorded 8.9 seconds and 17.1 at 83, respectively, and the uptick puts the Tribeca on an equal performance footing with Honda’s Pilot, the gold standard of this class. There’s also a fuel-cost benefit. EPA forecasts remain the same—16 mpg city, 21 highway—but the 3.6 runs on regular whereas its predecessor needed premium.

The ’08 Tribeca is almost two inches longer, but none of the increase has found its way inside, where the second and third rows are kneeroom-challenged. Aside from that, this Legacy-based CUV has no glaring faults.

Daring also applies to the pricing. A basic five-passenger Tribeca starts at $30,640, more than an all-wheel-drive Honda Pilot VP. And the seven-passenger edition starts at $31,640, which is about the same as the base price for an all-wheel-drive version of the much bigger GMC Acadia.

2008 Volvo C30 T5

2008 Volvo C30 T5 - And this one is definitely a Volvo, an S40 sedan made over with a butt tuck (goodbye to about 200 pounds and 8.5 inches behind the rear wheels) and all-new clothes. Well, new except for the hood and windshield. Chopping off the tail has the visual effect of exaggerating the front overhang, amplifying the wedge shape created by the beltline rising as it sweeps toward the tail. Under the skin, the hearty T5 turbo 2.5-liter five-cylinder powering the front wheels is the only engine, backed by a six-speed manual or, for $1250, a five-speed automatic.

More on the sportswear theme—the C30 is sporty in the manner of sweats from Calvin Klein, not like a Speedo. Stick with the base car—called Version 1.0 on the menu—which comes with 205/50R-17 all-weather Michelins and a suspension calibration that’s softer than Volvo offers on the C30 anywhere else in the world, and you’ll get sure-footed reflexes paired with no-complaints ride smoothness, at least on the acne-free blacktops of the Sunbelt, where we did this test. Tire roar on textured roads was modest but not negligible.

The Version 1.0 for this test had just one option, Brilliant Blue Metallic paint at $475, for an as-tested total of $23,920. Volvo offers a long list of ways to make your C30 more expensive, including a custom-build program in which you ante $300 for a special menu that allows you to pay still more for à la carte items that include 17 exterior and 12 interior color combinations, bi­xenon headlights, keyless starting, parking assist, navigation, and some things that shouldn’t be so rarefied, such as a six-CD changer, heated seats, and cruise control. Think of this special menu as the fast track to a C30 north of 30 large.

Coupes, of course, have long doors—especially long and heavy on the C30, a price for style you’ll be aware of paying each and every time you swing them. When seated, you have a long reach back over your shoulder for the belt, too, very long if you’re a short person with the seat adjusted forward. Apart from that, this is a handy little mobile unit, about two inches longer than a VW Rabbit, so it’s easy to park. The six-speed shifts with a short, smooth stroke, and clutch engagement is perfect—if you think you can’t drive a stick, you’ll find you can in this Volvo.

The 227-hp T5 is a light-pressure turbo setup, just 0.53 atmosphere at full boost. It doesn’t come on with a lunge; indeed, there seems to be nobody home when you toe into it in fifth or sixth gear at polite speeds. But in the lower gears, the torque ramps up promptly to fold your ears back, romping to 60 in 6.7 seconds, exactly a half-second behind the Mini Cooper S and VW GTI, two obvious competitors. Quarter-mile numbers of 15.3 seconds at 95 mph earn the C30 a spot in our class of spirited performers, but not the fast class.

Out in the twisties, the C30 has a trusty feel, reliable in its responses, predictable, in that sense rather like the GTI, and altogether more relaxed, and relaxing, than the twitchy Cooper S. Grip measures 0.80 g. Expect understeer at the limit. Braking from 70 mph uses up 187 feet.

Version 1.0 cars come with a black low-sheen-plastic flare all around the bottom of the body and wheel openings.

All versions come with leather “touch points”—the wheel, the shift knob, and the hand brake. But that wasn’t enough in our Version 1.0 to counteract the frugal look of an advertised special: “Only $23,920 while they last!” The putty-brown dash top doesn’t quite match the putty-gray window sills—the surface textures don’t match, either—and neither is quite happy with the pearl gray plastic of the center stack, cluster housing, cup-holder surround, and door pulls.

2007 Lincoln Mark LT

2007 Lincoln Mark LT - In some social circles, a Ford truck could imply that the driver might lack refinement, might have a Skoal ring on the back pocket of his best slacks, and might be found on any given Saturday night spinning donuts in a muddy field, Bud Ice in hand, hanging out the window and screaming, “Yee-haw!” Does a Lincoln Mark LT say anything different, or does it just say, “This sucka just spent an extra four grand on his Ford”?

The interior of the Mark LT says “Ford” but with a Lincoln accent. That’s not quite as sexy as an Italian accent, but at least it isn’t quite the elderly rasp it used to be. The dash and the center stack only look Lincoln in color availability, as the layout and materials are the same in an F-150. Think of it as a Ford dressed for a black-tie dinner.

They won’t know it from the performance. Mechanically, this truck is identical to the F-150. The Cadillac Escalade EXT at least gets more horsepower than the Chevrolet it’s based on (403 compared with 366 from the Chevy Avalanche’s top engine) and two more cogs in the slushbox.

A headlining testimony to the 5.4’s ineptitude is its inability to indulge us in that redeeming pickup shenanigan: gratuitous rear wheelspin. With 2540 of the Mark LT’s 5900 pounds on the rear axle, all the V-8 could manage without punishing brake torque was a quick chirp, as though maybe we had run over a bird’s nest.

Although the Mark LT is not the only Lincoln with a solid rear axle—that bit of old-school Americana, the Town Car, still rocks the rigid rear—it is the only Lincoln with a solid rear axle supported by leaf springs and meant to support an additional 1430 pounds in the bed, and there is no place for floaty when you’re hauling 1430 pounds of diamond-encrusted bingo balls. The Town Car might have a spacious trunk, but to get that much weight in it, you’d have to be hauling something pretty dense. Plutonium, perhaps? Since we’re so close to Canada here at C/D HQ, we have to keep in mind that it might make for a sticky border crossing.

2007 Pontiac G5 GT

2007 Pontiac G5 GT - Base G5s get a 148-hp, 2.2-liter Ecotec four-cylinder, and $19,040 G5 GTs step up to a 173-hp, 2.4-liter four, along with four-wheel disc brakes, 17-inch alloy wheels, and a stiffer suspension.

In GT form, the G5 has more horsepower than all six competitors in our last small-sedan roundup [“Sensible Shoes,” December 2006]. Performance from this GT, equipped with a quick-reacting four-speed automatic, was strong, getting it to 60 mph in 7.5 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 15.9 at 86 mph. That’s quicker than all but the Mazda 3 s from the comparo, and those cars were all manuals.

The driver faces easy-to-read gauges and a clean-looking and well-organized center stack and interacts with a firm brake pedal that—combined with optional $1695 18-inch wheels and grippy 215/45 Pirelli P Zero Rossos—produces excellent 164-foot stops from 70 mph. Those tires also make possible a heroic 0.88 g, with less understeer than expected.

Careful with options, too, because our fully loaded GT topped out at $24,910 with such frivolities as the $540 rear wing—it blocked the view and jiggled to boot—from the Cobalt SS Supercharged. That tab is more than the tag on a 263-hp Mazdaspeed 3 or 200-hp VW GTI, two 10Best Cars that are quicker—and all-around better—than the Pontiac, by a wide margin.

And G5 sales—fewer than 2400 in its best month, about 10 percent of Cobalt sales—haven’t exactly lit up showrooms. What was wrong with the original plan?

Cadillac STS V-8

Cadillac STS V-8 - The STS comes in three aromas. There's the starter-kit version ($41,690) powered by a 255-horse, 3.6-liter V-6. There's the V-8 rear-wheel-drive model ($47,495) featuring a 4.6-liter Northstar producing 320 horses, 20 more than the old STS's output. And there's a V-8 all-wheel-drive STS, with a mandatory heavy options load ($62,765) whose driveline is yanked intact from the SRX.

The STS now rides on a wheelbase 4.2 inches longer than the old car's, yet in overall length the STS is 4.7 inches shorter. Glance at the car in profile and you can see what got chopped. The trunk's volume is down by two cubic feet.

Rear-seat dimensions, though, aren't much changed. It's still snug back there, at least for a luxury sedan, okay for two adults and their mocha lattes. It would have helped if the seat cushion weren't so low and you could insert both feet entirely beneath the front seats. A third adult betwixt? For 20 minutes maybe, but remember that with rear drive there's again a transmission hump to battle, and Hump Man has no choice but to stick one Florsheim into each of his colleagues' footwells.

What you notice first about the STS is that there's no ignition keyhole. Instead, you carry a standard-looking fob that signals the car to unlock its doors as you approach. After that, all you do is put your foot on the brake, then press a rocker switch to the right of the steering column. Voilà , the Northstar stirs to life. Press the bottom of the rocker to shut off the engine. In theory, you stash the fob in your pocket or purse and never have to remove it. If you don't care for that method of cranking, you can also fire up your STS remotely, from as far away as 200 feet.

What you notice next is that this is a vault-like Seville—sorry, STS. Cadillac has run amok with sound-deadening materials, which no doubt contribute to this car's 4148-pound heft. Special mats and blankets have been inserted in the dash. The shock towers, driveline tunnel, and wheelhouses all benefit from rubbery sound-absorbing goo, and the doors are triple-sealed. At 60 mph, there's negligible wind noise at the A-pillars, making this a soothing, almost meditative place to conduct highway business. Fact is, the Northstar's silky snarl is now clearly audible only at wide-open throttle.

Our test car was fitted with Magnetic Ride Control ($1850), which offered two firmness settings—touring and performance. Good luck switching between the two. You have to stop the car and toggle through a six-step interrogation on the big screen. Why not a simple switch on the center console, next to the traction control? Maybe it doesn't matter. In either mode, the dampers and bushings are about as stiff as Al Gore at a séance. The ride is never downright harsh, although there's some crash-through on Michigan potholes. Rarely do high-frequency road pimples find their way through, nor is much road noise transmitted.

2008 Nissan Rogue SL AWD

2008 Nissan Rogue SL AWD - An SUV that emerges from the bones of a Sentra doesn’t exactly cause shoving matches at our car sign-out board. We’ve compared two of the latest Sentras and found that the first, a Sentra 2.0S, ranked last in a field of five peers [“Sensible Shoes,” December 2006]. A second comparo [“Power Toys,” May 2007] placed the sportier Sentra SE-R Spec V one step up from last place. However, plopping an SUV body atop that platform works better than we had expected. One major advantage of this relationship can be seen at the scales: Our fully loaded Rogue SL with all-wheel drive weighed in at 3533 pounds, hundreds of pounds lighter than the portliest small utes and nearly identical to the weight Honda claims for the AWD version of its bestselling CR-V.

Those extra inches of height do allow the Rogue to sit higher off the ground than the Sentra and translate into 16 more cubic feet of cargo space. The high roofline lends an airy feel, and there is decent legroom in the back seat, although three adults sitting across the rear bench might not be a stellar idea as the Rogue is just a smidge wider than the Sentra. The Rogue’s innards are a bit smaller than those of a Honda CR-V or Toyota RAV4 but about the same as a Saturn Vue’s. Some rivals in the Rogue’s class offer a third row, but the Rogue will go through life without one. What you do get in the way back is 29 cubic feet of cargo space, which is a few six-packs shy of the space in the CR-V and RAV4 and, again, about the same size as a Vue.

Although we recognize that prospective Rogue buyers are going to be more concerned with fuel-economy numbers than burnout abilities, the forever-young goons in the home office rang up a semirespectable 21 mpg over a 550-mile mix of highway and city driving. Which turned out to equal the EPA’s city-driving mpg estimate for the Rogue. We don’t have a C/D-observed fuel-economy number for any other ’08 small four-cylinder utes, but the EPA city figures for the ’08 RAV4, CR-V, and Vue are expected to be 20, 19, and 19, respectively.

Highway cruising is where the Rogue and its transmission work best. Secure on-center steering feel, a firm but compliant ride, and a quiet cabin combine to effortlessly count down highway miles. At 70 mph the Rogue is turning a fuel-efficient and hushed 2200 rpm. Were this car equipped with a conventional automatic, such tall gearing would likely result in the annoying habit of constantly downshifting (or upshifting) between the two top gears. In the Rogue, the CVT seamlessly raises engine revs as the transmission moves imperceptibly through its ratios. Highway passing is a smooth experience. Still, if you’re old-fashioned and must have a conventional shifting sense, the Rogue offers six preset ratios that mimic the gears of a conventional transmission.

At the track, the CVT makes the most of the Rogue’s power-to-weight ratio and delivers a 0-to-60 time of 8.8 seconds. As noted earlier, we haven’t tested any of the Rogue’s four-cylinder peers, but we expect this SUV’s acceleration to be class competitive. Keeping wheelspin in check at takeoff is Nissan’s clutch-based all-wheel drive, set to send 50 percent of the engine’s power to the rear wheels at launch; then, once rolling, the power split shifts to the front wheels until slip is detected.

On its first try, Nissan has produced a good-looking and spirited small SUV. It doesn’t have a third row or optional V-6 power, but there are plenty of small-SUV buyers who desire neither feature. The Rogue has the rest of the small-sport-ute checklist covered. Perhaps the name is a tad theatrical, but calling it the Nissan Competent just didn’t have the ring to it the company was looking for.

2007 Saturn Aura Green Line

2007 Saturn Aura Green Line - The Red Green Show was a Canadian parody of home-improvement and outdoor shows that ran on CBC and PBS from 1991 to 2006. Main character Red Green was known for his nuggets of humble wit.

What would Red think of the Aura Green Line? Well, the people have spoken, and they already seem to think the Aura is a handsome car. We do. Red, what if the women do find you handsome? Does that mean you don’t have to be handy, then?

Good for the Aura Green Line, because the mild hybrid powertrain in this car is not particularly handy at acceleration or saving fuel. This is the same drivetrain that powers the Saturn Vue Green Line, and not the sort of hybrid that will whoosh around on nothing but electric power.

GM says this mild hybrid, although it saves less fuel than a full hybrid, is a cheaper way to hybrid enlightenment, which is correct. With a base price of $22,695, this is the cheapest hybrid on the market today, but just barely. The Aura only undercuts the Toyota Prius by $100. Our example came with a single option, the $375 Preferred package, that includes a power driver seat, power mirrors, and steering-wheel audio controls.

Since we don’t spend much of our time idling in traffic here in Ann Arbor, Michigan, this hybrid solution netted less-than-spectacular results for the Aura Green Line’s fuel-economy numbers. We averaged 23 mpg, only 3 mpg better than a V-6 Aura and a number we’re sure Saturn would rather we didn’t report. Granted, that number includes our track-testing session and flogging the car from every stop just to hear the poor 2.4 suffer, but every car we test must protect its petroleum reserves against the same onslaught.

We could get 23 mpg in a much more entertaining car, one with more than a mere 164 horsepower, one capable of reaching 60 mph in less than 9.4 seconds and with a quarter-mile better than 17.3 seconds at 83 mph.

We could get that sort of fuel economy in a car that delivered much more driving excitement than did the Aura, what with its underwhelming 0.76-g skidpad performance, too. Okay, that number was no doubt hindered by the budget Uniroyal Tiger Paws, tires that grip the road with all the feeble tenacity of the runt of the litter and scream just as shrilly at almost any provocation.

2007 Toyota Camry Hybrid

2007 Toyota Camry Hybrid - The Camry has been America’s bestselling car eight of the past nine years, and this all-new 2007 version comes with three powertrain choices: four-cylinder conventional, V-6 conventional, or hybrid. Call ’em vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. You can’t get more mainstream than strawberry on the Camry starting roster.

The Camry’s hybrid operation continues the pattern set by the Prius sedan and Highlander and RX400h sport-utes, albeit with new hardware. The engine is a 2.4-liter Atkinson-cycle four of 147 horsepower, coupled to a continuously variable transmission and supplemented by up to 45 horses from an electric motor.

Still, if performance were all that mattered, you’d opt for the 268-hp V-6, which will be quicker still, and save (we estimate) about $3000 on the sticker. You pay extra for the hybrid’s promise of performance and fuel savings, as seen by the EPA’s ratings of 43 mpg city and 37 highway. We find it easy to get 33 or 34 in mixed metro driving. Then again, it’s easy to drop down toward 25 mpg if we romp on the power often. As with conventional cars, how you drive determines mileage. Overall, we averaged 33 mpg.

Hybrid or not, there’s a lot to like about this new Camry, starting with its intriguing shape. It crouches with its nose low, ready to pounce as you approach from the front. The side glass arcs inward as it rises, suggesting a canopy. Inside, the feeling is spacious, with the windshield and dashboard pushed forward and out of your face. The driving position is excellent. Even with the optional navigation system, remarkably few buttons are needed to operate this complex machine.

Brake feel, always a hybrid bugaboo, is good here, if not quite up to nonhybrid-Camry standards. Although Toyota has not yet released Camry hybrid prices, we expect you’ll have to drive some six-digit distance to save enough gas to pay back the extra cost. You’ll enjoy the trip.