By on February 3, 2010

Hop back to the distant (or not so distant) days of high school. Remember the complex universe that is class dynamics? Each class had its typical individuals. There was that all-around kind of guy. Perfect looks, perfect grades, perfect girlfriend. Maybe a little boring, but who cares when you can passionately discuss Fermat’s last theorem at your own leisure?

Then there was the troublemaker: not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but always a lot of fun to hang out with during sleepless nights. Not that your mom would approve.

But tucked away into the darkest, farthermost corner of the classroom was that quiet kid that could stay utterly silent for days, and when he finally had something to say, he murmured it a hushed tone that even the teacher ignored. This, believe it or not, brings us neatly into the subject of the new Fiat Bravo. Euro car buffs probably remember this nameplate from the late 1990s hatchback which replaced the fairly successful Fiat Tipo. The Bravo – and its five door sibling, the Brava – slotted in the family hatchback segment, and were replaced in 2001 by the Fiat Stilo.

The Stilo, to put it mildly, didn’t exactly top the charts back in the Old Continent, and was criticized for its complete dullness. So after 6 years of declining sales, Fiat resurrected a nameplate from the turn of the century and drummed out a replacement: the new Fiat Bravo.

With the (wait for it…) Brave new Bravo, Fiat intends to retake the family hatchback market with a storm – and considerable Italian flair. Fiat would rather you didn’t know it, but the new Bravo isn’t totally new. In many parts it is, but it’s still based on the underpinnings of the unloved Stilo.

Funnily enough, this all-important VW Golf challenging car was developed in only 18 months, and used extensive computer simulation to speed things up. So, how does it all work out?

Well, for starters – no matter where you come from, this is car is a looker. Up front, the Bravo has the familiar Punto grille plastered on it and the back lights are influenced by the original Bravo. The overall shape is sleek and fluent – no design committees here. In a bid to avoid our daily allowance of Italian-car-related-clichés, we’ll let you overview the rest. To our eyes, this is a win for Fiat’s design studio, with clear influences from Fiat group’s other offerings, such as the Alfa Romeo MiTo. However, our metallic-black tester didn’t do the Bravo justice – this car aches for a bright color.

On another note, a closer look at the Bravo’s wheel arches gave us the slight impression that it was a little more high-riding than we’d want. Or maybe it just needs a bigger set of wheels – the ones you see in the photos are a custom job by the dealer.

The interior is a revelation, speaking in Fiat terms. This is undoubtedly one of the best interiors the Italian company has ever produced to date, and we weren’t even bothered by the fake carbon-fiber panels which felt fairly good to the touch. Most controls are logically arranged and there’s orange ambient lighting all around. But wait, there’s more: the door and trunk close with a reassuring thump that’s been long missing from Fiat’s midsize offerings.

Still, there are a few issues. Ask and thou shall find hard plastics where the eye doesn’t see and even where it does – like in the gearlever area. The wiper and turning signal handles belong to the better part of the 1990s and there are not as many soft-touch areas as you’d find in some competitors. We could also see no good coming out of the partially reflective plastic covering the dials either, but the dials themselves – in good Fiat tradition – are visible to the driver only. No more nagging from the wife when you drift to 85.

On the practicality front, the Bravo takes a few hits. The front seats feel a little awkward at first, but prove to be comfortable on long journeys – if a little hard. Rear legroom, however, is limited and you wouldn’t want to place anyone you love in the middle rear seat. It could get nasty. The trunk itself isn’t exceptionally big, but it’s deep enough to comfortably fit an adult (don’t ask).

Things get interesting under the bonnet. The gas engine range consists of 3 different states of tune of the same 1.4 liter, 16 valve unit – a naturally aspirated variant with 90 horsepower and two turbocharged versions, called T-JET, with 120 and 150 horsepower. If this all sounds familiar to you, it’s because it is – this flexible little engine appears everywhere in the concern’s offerings, including the Alfa MiTo and Abarth versions of the Punto and 500.

Unsurprisingly, Fiat’s intention is to compete with Volkswagen on the small turbocharged engine front. Over the last two years, VW has been constantly replacing its lower capacity gas engines with smaller, turbocharged (and in some cases, supercharged as well) units, and Fiat has clearly spotted the advantage of the added torque and power availability.

Our tester was equipped with the mid-range motor, producing 120 horsepower. Consumers in the Holy Land – much like in the States – prefer their cars with two pedals only and without that odd stick to their right, so our tester was mated to a six-speed Dualogic sequential gearbox.

The first part of this combination impresses. 120 horsepower doesn’t sound like much, and a sub-10-second sprint to 60 doesn’t exactly rock the earth, but the flexibility of the turbo engine allows for excellent mid-range power. The spec sheet says that maximum torque is available from as low as 1,750 RPM – and thankfully, there’s no noticeable turbo lag unless you really push it. As an added bonus, this engine has a great throaty sound and turbo hiss that’s only noticeable if you open the window and concentrate. At which point you may put the Bravo’s 5 star EuroNCAP crash test rating to review – be sure to let us know.

The bad news, as you’ve probably expected, come from the gearbox. We’re well acquainted with the said Dualogic gearbox, but with this engine and car it feels even more frustrating. Instead of a traditional automatic setup utilizing a torque converter, this gearbox uses an electronic clutch which shifts gears automatically. The result is, well, bumpy.

The Dualogic is simply not as smooth as a conventional automatic or a dual clutch gearbox like VW’s DSG. And unlike the 500, the Bravo isn’t equipped with any sort of a hill holding system (and there’s no creeping), which means that the second you release the brake, the car will immediately succumb to the laws of physics and roll in the general direction of the gradient, which could coincide with the general direction of the car behind you. Possible solutions: growing a third leg or braking with your left foot, neither of which TTAC recommends.

To make matters worse, this autobox is hesitant and when it does finally decide on the proper gear it lets you know with a friendly kick. In town, it’s a rocky and unpleasant experience. On the highway, it gets better. Here’s the thing: if you drive this car like a regular automatic, you’ll be disappointed. If you keep its manual roots in mind, lift off the throttle during upshifts and use the handy steering wheel mounted shifters, it’s actually not an entirely traumatic experience – it even blips on downshifts. Which begs the question: why not get the manual (and save money) in the first place?

The ride leans to the harsh side. It’s by no means uncomfortable, but slightly restless around town. On better roads it feels fairly composed, but wind noises intrude the cockpit in speeds approaching the legal limits.

When the roads got twisty, we had some expectations from the Bravo, as it comes from the company which has been producing sweet handling cars since the dawn of automotive time – not to mention owning Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Maserati and Lancia. Coincidentally, this was also one of the most disappointing aspects of the Bravo.

There’s the steering. The thick-rimmed leather wheel – which is pleasant to the touch – quickly proved just how bad an electro-hydraulic setup can get. It’s over-assisted, imprecise and vague, with minimal Playstation-like levels of feedback. The gas pedal has a rubbery feel to it and the brakes – although having good initial response – give up and go on a smoking break way too quickly. Not exactly a recipe for a fun Sunday drive, but in the end of the day, there are worse cars to drive, thanks to a good chassis and controlled body roll thanks to the toughened suspension. It’s a shame you have to dig deeper than most drivers naturally will to discover these positive qualities.

The Fiat Bravo isn’t a bad car. It’s actually one of Fiat’s best efforts to date: it’s an attractive and fairly refined car with a worthy engine that’s let down by disappointing driving dynamics and a poor automatic gearbox – though the latter is about to change with the introduction of Fiat’s first dual clutch transmission (DCT) later this year. But it’s still not as complete as the Volkswagen Golf or even the Ford Focus, and it suffers from Fiat’s poor reputation when it comes to family hatchbacks.

The Bravo then, is that quiet student perched against the class wall. It can’t be that awe-inspiring all-knowing guy – let’s call him Golf – but neither can it be ‘the dude’ because of its mediocre driving dynamics and lack of driver appeal. And as quiet individuals go, it’ll be ignored by most shoppers looking for a family hatchback – and that’s a shame, because it still manages to be a refreshingly original pick in an otherwise boring class (pun unintended), that’s also significantly cheaper than its more accomplished competitors. Bravo (sorry, we had to).

Fiat provided the vehicle for this review, along with insurance and one tank of gas

This review made possible by

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

19 Comments on “Review: 2011 Fiat Bravo 1.4 T-Jet...”

  • avatar

    This car really looks bland in black.

  • avatar

    Nice review, though it’s maybe not entirely clear with that header that the current Bravo is a 2007 model.

    I’d agree with the reviewer about black not doing this car justice, they really are quite handsome seen in the metal… also looks like those “custom job by the dealer” wheels are the wrong size – they look tiny, and mess up the car’s (usually nice and planted) stance.

    It is a shame the handling doesn’t match up to the looks. I used to own this car’s namesake – the old 90s Bravo – and along with good looks, handling was one of its real strong points.

    • 0 avatar
      Tal Bronfer

      The header likely refers to the Bravo’s possible appearance in the US.

      As for the wheels, I agree. The reason they’re a custom job is that they only sell them with hubcaps in Israel. In all honesty, the hubcaps look better and draw less attention to themselves. On the other hand, the bigger wheels likely hurt the ride.

  • avatar

    Tal, thanks for the review. It’s good to hear about European cars. Italians can design really nice stuff. Most European cars seem to look better than most NA cars…and drive better.

  • avatar

    I wonder what the manufacturer appeal is on these single clutch automated manuals (cost?). I’ve never driven a Ferrari of course, but in every instance I’ve tried one (R8, M5 for starts) they’ve been pretty awful when not driven like a maniac. The R8 is undoubtedly the nicest car I’ve ever driven, and yet the few shifts I didn’t lift enough for left me wondering how many times I could take that horse kicking the car’s bumper feeling in a regular driver. That question is reinforced when I see Smarts kicking and bucking in my neighborhood (they are common for some reason). It is visible to other drivers, and I have to imagine it feels awful.

    • 0 avatar

      Yeah, I drove a Smart when it was grey market imported here a few years ago, and was totally unimpressed with the transmission. Unimpressed enough to completely cross it off of the list of possible-maybe-down-the-road cars to look into buying.

    • 0 avatar
      Tal Bronfer

      I’d say automakers are aware that this is a temporary solution until dual clutch gearbox (literally) kick in. Until fairly recently, DCGs were patented by VW. They are doubtless the future of automatic transmissions (and gearboxes in general).

      The main appeal in those kinds of gearboxes are costs: they are usually based on pre-existing manual transmissions, and are much cheaper to produce and service compared to planetary automatics. This is especially important with cheaper cars – hence the Smart. Positively, they are better for performance – if not for your back.

      As mentioned, Fiat already has a dual clutch box, and it should be duly arriving to the Bravo in its next facelift or update (which shouldn’t be too far away).

  • avatar

    Can’t say I’m itching to own one after reading this review. And I love hatchbacks.

    Assuming Americans find this car in Chrysler trim appealing, they’re still going to be concerned about reliability. With TrueDelta I’ll be doing my best to provide some initial reliability stats within 4-6 months of the launch here.

  • avatar

    The T-Jets have recently been replaced with the new generation ‘multi-air’ engines. From what I’ve heard these are quite impressive (strong and still efficient).

    It’s just a real shame the C-1 platform isn’t that great in terms of driving dynamics. I also find that all three C-1 (evo) cars FIAT offers today in the C-segment (Delta, Alfa Giulietta, Bravo) all have a huge amount of metal in front of the frontwheels, or in other words, the front wheels are way to close to the A-pillars. I know this is mostly the result of FWD + pedestrian safety laws but still other brands seem to find ways to make it less apparent and it really lets down three otherwise goodlooking designs.

    What I would really like to see is a RWD Alfa in the D-segment (3-series) that still looks as good or better than the 159, but also finally drives as an Alfa should drive again.

    • 0 avatar
      Tal Bronfer

      They’re going to be updated with MultiAir technology, not replaced. They are still going to be called T-Jet (with the MultiAir moniker added), and will receive a slight horsepower bump.

  • avatar

    I own a Grande Punto with a dualogic transmission, in Spain. Maybe you may find useful the following info about the transmission:

    – In the Fiats the hill-holder function comes with the Electronic Stability Program option. Probably the tested car was not equiped with ESP, which of course is a strongly recommended option anyway (for all types of transmissions). And it will be mandatory in most of Europe in 2-3 years.

    – In my opinion, the dualogic gearbox is well adapted for its main market (europe). Why? Because it improves fuel economy with respect to manual, because it gives you feedback (so that you know when the gearshift happens and therefore on which gear you are), and because it changes to ultra-fast shift mode if you press the pedal more than 75% and the engine is at high rpm (so that it is very effective, e.g., when overtaking). Certainly, I would not change the dualogic for the VW dual-clutch, for reasons #1 and #2. Specially #1 is a no-no for the VW.

    I trully believe that many south-european drivers (which generally hate conventional automatics), would agree with me. And that is probably the main market for the Fiat you tested. Of course many other drivers would hate this transmission, for instance those in the USA… but this car is not (yet) marketed for the USA. And Fiat produces also “conventional” automatics (for other models), so that they can use them in the USA.

    Sorry for the too long post!

    • 0 avatar

      This is the same transmission that Alfa calls Selaspeed. And your observations are spot on. The “automatic” funtions best if it is only used in stop and go situations like traffic jams.

      The rest of the time it is best to row the gears up or down. It is strange at first using this kind of gearbox but once you get the hang of it it is rather a blast.

  • avatar

    So this is how Chrysler will come back in 2012???

  • avatar

    So if there’s no creep, the gears must be disengaged when stationary. So use the handbrake and do a ‘hill start’! Part of “Drivers Ed” in UK anyway. May need some practice without the ‘analogue’ effect of a clutch bite point, but tstill, better than rolling backwards into teh car behind!

    • 0 avatar
      Tal Bronfer

      Yes, I can drive a manual :)

      That’s not the point. This is still an automatic gearbox, and it should provide a solution for people who want to drive… automatically. Dual clutch transmissions provide the best of the two worlds, and this is the update this car critically needs to succeed in the American market.

  • avatar

    With so many Fiat reviews lately I think it’s high time that the site include a little Fiat logo in the “Find Car Reviews by Make” box.

    As to the car itself it’s coming to Brazil this year. And hopefully will light up the charts as the Tipo did many years ago. The Stilo was always the 2nd or 3rd option down here, though I gather it was always more loved, too.

    As to the transmission, many cars are now coming out in Brazil w/ this kind of thing. Even VW uses its own version and not a dual clutch one. The key seems to be lifting the foot off a little when sensing a gear change is coming. For a people used to driving manuals it comes as a great confort and most people are not unduly bothered by the bumps.

  • avatar

    And, let me add this little info. FWIW, not all things are created equal. According to what I’ve read (as I have no personal experience w/ cars w/ this type of transmisson nor any of my friends do), the VW version seems to be the best. Fiat’s itineration follows closely. GM’s is many steps down (so bad in fact, it has had very lackluckster success getting its buyers to pay up for one). And, amazingly, Mercedes’ smart’s thingy is even worse than GM’s. The other makers down here don’t offer this kind of transmission.

  • avatar

    OK, two things:

    First, the pop-up-on-hover ads are getting very close to being enough to drive away this newly-obsessive TTAC reader. I’m sitting here, late at night, enjoying a PB&J and some TTAC before I join my wife in bed, and the merest brush against the mouse yields a blasted, “THE WHATEVER CAR HAS A RACE INSPIRED SUSPENSION! THAT’S A GOOD THING, BECA…” and I finally manage to hit the tiny-ass little close X, after which I fail to navigate the maze of double-underlined ad triggers on the way to the volume icon in the system tray… “THE WHATEVER CAR HAS A RACE INSPIRED SUSPENSION! THAT’S A GOOD THING, BE…”

    You know what? Screw that s**t. If I want to find out about a car, I’ll click on the ad. Forcing it – LOUDLY – down my throat because I didn’t concentrate enough while mousing across the page is the epitome of crass, pointless obnoxiousness. I shouldn’t have to remember to mute my audio before I come here, and even without the audio the ads are incredibly intrusive, not to mention ludicrously arbitrary. Hey, you triggered a car ad on ‘engine’! Because -cars- have -engines-! I see what you did there!

    You’ve got a good web site whose -normal- ads I pay attention to. Don’t ruin the party by shoving your flier-laden fist down my throat if I open my mouth to cough.

    Now – second – what has TTAC got against left foot braking? If you’re driving an autobox, it’s almost foolhardy not to, if for nothing else than the half-second you gain in panic braking scenarios. In competition driving, left foot braking is fairly normal, even for cars with manual boxes, since you can shift clutchlessly if you know the car and have the right gearbox. In an automatic, I fail to see any rational arguments against it, save for those which presuppose an already hopelessly idiotic driver.

  • avatar
    fred schumacher

    In spite of what the car press likes or car enthusiasts want, in the States a car is an appliance. The less we have to interact with it, the happier we are. That’s why automatic transmissions are preferred and why Toyota flew to the top (until the latest glitch). Toyota produces the car equivalent of the electric toaster, and that sells.

    If this car is coming to the U.S., it would be nice to see a review of how it does in bland driving. We understand that in Europe, drivers like to use the throttle as an on-off switch. Over here, we go long distances on boring roads every day. For perspective, take away the Negev and the lived in part of Israel is smaller than my home school district in Northern Minnesota. How will this car do in boring driving? That’s the key question.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Eaststand: until electric vehicles offer an advantage to IC, no ones buying these novelties en masse. There has to be...
  • loopy55: Here in San Diego the US has its own “border” just before the entry into Mexico. This has license plate...
  • mcs: @Eaststand: “new vehicles that take hours to refuel,” Not a problem when the vehicle is sitting...
  • beachy: The amount of energy required to propel a massive iron pickup truck 2 or 3 miles is more than enough to run...
  • Eaststand: You mean to say companies arent keen on replacing their work vehicles with new vehicles that take hours to...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber