Page 1
Car test
R9926A
See also R9732A and R9666
March 1999
TEST
UPDATE
Fiat Bravo
Featuring 80SX 1.2
What’s new?
Fiat’s five-door Brava and shorter-butsportier three-door Bravo look set to lose
dual-model identity when their successor
emerges in the new millennium. Meantime,
the roomy hatches get a mild makeover and a
revised model line-up, while Fiat has rung a
few changes under the bonnet, too.
FOR THOSE STILL FIGHTING TO FATHOM
Fiat’s confusing, like-sounding model names, the
Brava is the five-door,family-sizedhatchback,whileBravo
is a 15cm shorter but more sportily slanted three-door
variation on the same theme. This “horses-for-courses”
approach makes sound sense: the Brava offers more space,
five-door practicality and a rounded-offrideforthosewitha
family to consider, while the Bravo’s
distinctive-but-different styling and subtly revised
suspension and specification cater for less-encumbered
buyers seeking a more sporting attraction.
Whichever tickles your fancy,though,Fiathasrecently
given the pair a mild makeover. Staying faithful to the
original styling concept, the refettled Fiats are not much
different to look at, but every version now offers
significant improvements and costs less, or at least no
more, than its previous equivalent.
Equipment levels are improved across the board, with
the former S version dropped, so that SX now takes on
the entry-level mantle. There are two new engines under
the bonnet, or rather they’re new to the Bravo/Brava
pairing, while existing engines have been refettled to
improve emissions and economy. Even the entry-level
SX comes with an electric sunroof; there are front
passenger and now side airbag options to go with the
driver’s standard-fit one, while top models now boast an
automatic climate control system as standard.
Up front, only the five-door Brava receives Fiat’s new
1.9 JTD common-rail direct-injection turbo-diesel,
though 75 and 100bhp versions of Fiat’s indirectly
injected oil-burner live on in both body styles. However,
our three-door test subject is powered by an 82bhp
1.2-litre 16-valve engine – Fiat’s feisty little “FIRE”
Continued on page 3
Page 2
PERFORMANCE
9
Acceleration time in seconds
mph
THROUGH
THE
GEARS
IN 5TH
GEAR
IN 4TH
GEAR
20 mph
5TH/4TH
SPEED
RANGES
Maximum speeds
REVS
PER
MINUTE
30
30
14.2/11.2
1st
2nd
3rd
40
2.0
7.2
5.5
40
6550* 52706140
* for best acceleration
4.4
14.0
10.7
14.0/10.7
5th4th
50
50
14.4/11.7
1
24
21.6
17.2
29
52
7.8
60
60
3
17.5/13.
5
83
108
FUEL CONSUMPTION
Fuel grade: Unleaded premium, 95 octane
Type of use - air conditioning off* mpg
In the city - heavy traffic 24½
In the country - quiet driving 50
Typical mpg overall 39
Realistic tank range † 48 litres/410
miles
70
11.7
31.5
23.8
70
108
mph
2
SAFETY AND SECURITY FEATURES
Assessed on their effectiveness and convenience
Seatbelts
front rear
Head restraints
front rear
Interior
safety padding
driver's airbag?
other airbags?
side impact protection
Fuel anti-spillage
standard on test car not availablefactory fitted option
4
Euro NCAP crash test results -
(the more black blobs the better)
Door locking
central locking?
remote control?
auto window closure?
deadlocks?
Luggage
secure from interior/hidden
4
passenger and side bags
optional on all models
from view
o
Alarm
engine immobilised?
standard on HLX and
HGT only)
o
not available
8
BRAKES
Pedal feel
Dry road stopping distance from 50mph (with optional ABS)
A good-to-average best stop is about 26m at 15-20kg pedal load)
6kg
10kg
16kg
Pedal load
20+kg
Distance
10m 20m
Fade test: pedal load requried for a moderate (34m/.75g) stop:
10kg at start of test, 14kg at end of test (Ideal brakes show no change)
_________________
34m
_________________
29m (ABS just working)
_________________
27½m (.93g best stop - ABS working fully)
30m
40m 50m 60m
HandbrakeBehaviour in an emergency
_________________
51m
MEASUREMENTS
4
8
8
8
8
4
*with air conditioning switched on, consumption will increase by 2–4% in
winter and 4–8% in summer
FOR THE TECHNICAL
ENGINE
Type front-mounted, transverse
four cylinder with iron block and
alloy head; five main bearings.
Size 70.8 x 78.9mm = 1242cc
Power 82bhp at 5500rpm
Torque 83 lb ft at 4250rpm
Valves twin (belt-driven)
overhead camshafts actuating
four valves per cylinder via
hydraulic tappets
Fuel/ignition electronic
multi-point petrol injection
integrated with distributorless
ignition. 50-litre fuel tank, with
low-level warning lamp
TRANSMISSION
Type five-speed manual;
front-wheel drive. No automatic
option
Mph per 1000rpm 20.7 in 5th,
17.6 in 4th
CHASSIS
Suspension front: independent
by MacPherson damper/struts,
coil springs and lower arms.
Rear: independent by trailing
arms and coil springs. Telescopic
dampers and anti-roll bars front
and rear
Steering rack and pinion with
hydraulic power assistance; 3.1
turns between full locks. Turning
circles average 10.7m between
kerbs, with 15.8m circle for one
turn of the wheel
Wheels 5½J steel with
175/65R14 82T tyres (Firestone
F-580 on test car); 135/80R14
80P space-saver spare wheel
Brakes solid discs front, drums
rear, with vacuum servo.
Electronic anti-lock control
(optional on SX) fitted on test
car
Centimetres
91-95
( with sunroof )
142
T: typical back seat space behind medium-sized front occupants
195
176*
88-106
14
(inner sill)
No
* 179 with mirrors folded
T
96
39 NA
T
35
(outer sill)
403
133
90
72
133
Three-door
75
46
130
107-113
46-67
1
69
Page 3
3
cracker that propels the Punto with such delightful brio,
and which replaces the 80bhp 12-valve 1.4 unit.
Bolting two hundred fewer ccs (it’s a mere 1.2-litre
engine we’re talking about don’t forget) into a bigger,
and in this Bravo’s case, more sportily slanted body,
doesn’t bode toowell onthe faceof it.But don’t write off
the titchy tearaway just yet. For starters it brings 2bhp
more to the party than its ousted 1.4 predecessor
(delivered 500rpm earlier, too) and musters the same
peak pulling power,albeit 1500rpm further round the rev
counter. And, going by the official government fuel
figures at least, the Bravo 80SX promises 16 per cent
(6mpg) better fuel economy than the old 1.4 in the
official “combined” fuel consumption cycle.
In the clinical confines of the test track, not
unpredictably, the smaller engine does suffer a small
drop-off in sprinting power – not when you’re
“red-lining” it, but at least when the gearstick’sleft to its
own devices. Size, as Renault’s Clio TV advert keeps
telling us, does matter! Stow the stopwatch, though, and
slight sluggishness relative to its forerunner is virtually
impossible to detect, and that’s before you’ve
considered the new unit’s smoother, sweeter-sounding
nature and eager enthusiasm.
A slightly more pedestrian pace would be all the more
understandable, as the 1.2’s overall gearing has been
raised. This not only helps to quell the Bravo’s busy (but
never boomy) cruising gait a little, but shouldn’t do fuel
economy any harm, either. Which, indeed, proves to be
the case. Across the board (though by less than the
government fuel figures would have you believe) the
1.2-powered Bravosips less fuelthan the old1.4 model,
to the tune of being a couple of mpg more miserly in
overall terms (39mpg compared with 37), up to nearly
6mpg more frugal (50mpg compared with 44½) on a
quiet, gentle run.
For drivers who like a taut, slightly sportier feel to
their family hatch, the Bravohas muchto commendit.
Despite its on-paper puniness, the 1.2 16-valver
nicely complements the Bravo’s zippy demeanour,
proving a racy little devil at times, but it s rarely
raucous. There remain occasional impressions (as with
the previous 1.4 model) that 80bhp isn’t quite enough to
do full justice to the Bravo’s pert, delightfully poised
chassis, but the catalogue stretches to the five-pot 2.0
HGT’s 154bhp brawn, if performance is more of a
priority.
The three-door Bravo’s body is stiffer than the
Brava’s, with the result that, paradoxically, it soaks up
rough road tremors better than its more family-focused
sidekick. It won’tseriously threaten the classleaders if a
limousine-style, magic carpet ride is the aim, but this
sporting stiffness, alliedwith exemplarybody control, is
part of the Bravo’s appeal in the first place.
The Fiat twins’ cabins have been refreshed with
darker, more upmarket materials and anew “chromatic”
effect, arranging darker colours towards the lower part
of the cabin, becoming lighter towards the top. It’s more
pleasing on the eye, we think, but as before, the quality
of the plastics could still stand a little improvement.
Other detail revisions inside include a new look to the
facia, which now uses the Bravo’s more aesthetically
pleasing (and easier-to-read) round dials on both cars.
Sadly, though, the Brava’s more awkward “half moon”
instruments live on when automatic transmission is
specified. The dash also brings a mild redesign for the
Bravo/Brava’s quirky, unique-fit radio, plus altered air
vents and speaker grilles, while the new driver’s-side
electric windowswitches and internal door handles now
have the same tactile, rubber-faced feel as other minor
controls.
Discreet pointers to spotting the revised Fiats from
outside include a now de rigueur black mesh grille for
the three door(the Brava wears achrome insert instead),
new-look alloy wheels for mid-level and upper HLX and
HGT models, and new wheel trims for the SX.
VERDICT
These latest revisions don’t advance the state of the
art in small family hatchbacks to any
earth-shattering degree. They do, however, infuse a
little more all-round appeal to the capable and
commodious Bravo and Brava, which – as before –
remain convincing value-for-money candidates in
bidding for your showroom support.
On paper, the 80SX’s titchy new 16-valve engine
has an uphill task on its hands. But in the Bravo, at
least, it’s gamer to give it a go than you might expect,
albeit with not quite the degree of success it achieves
in the lighter, more compact Punto.
The Fiat pair’s dual personality continues to cloud
the issue, for some buyers at least – clearly
acknowledged by the company’s hints that a
single-role successor will be tilted more towards the
Bravo’s sporty, more youthful character. Until then,
the contrasting lifestyles represented by the current
pair do at least represent logical alternatives and,
unlike many car makers, Fiat is at least giving us a
choice.
HOW THE BRAVO 80SX
COMPARES
FIAT BRAVO 1.2 16V 80SX 1242/82 3380 11.7 31.5/23.8 39 27½/20* 106 96/72 3.1/10.7 403
Citroën Xsara 1.4 5dr † 1360/75 3400 14.0 31.9/22.1 38 29/20 107 99/74 3.2/10.8 417
Daewoo Lanos 1.4SE 5dr 1349/75 3190 14.3 39.5/26.3 38½ 27/16* 106 96/73 3.0/10.0 408
Mazda 323 1.5LXi 5dr 1498/88 3500 12.0 29.1/21.4 38 24½/18* 109 99/74 2.7/11.2 420
Peugeot 206 1.4LX 5dr 1360/75 3330 12.7 30.3/20.2 43 25/13* 108 94/66 3.3/10.1 384
Rover 214i 8v 3dr 1396/75 3525 13.6 29.3/19.8 39½ 28/16* 107 94/65 3.4/10.4 397
† performance/economy figures for estate version * with ABS (p) all power-assisted
Engine
cap/power
(cc/bhp)
Revs at
30-70mph
70mph
through
(rpm)
gears (sec)
© The Automobile Association 1999
30-70mph
in 5th/4th
gears (sec)
Fuel
economy
(mpg)
Brakes
best stop
(m/kg)
Maximum
legroom front (cm)
Typical leg/
kneeroom rear (cm)
Steering(p)
turns/
circle (m)
Overall
length
(cm)
Loading...