Fiat Bravo Eco review
by David Finlay (2 June 2008)
The 1.9-litre MultiJet turbo diesel engine which has done such excellent work in so many Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Vauxhall, Saab and Cadillac products is gradually being replaced by a more modern unit with the same name but a lower capacity. For the cost-conscious, the most important model resulting from this changeover so far is the Bravo Eco, which occupies a similar position in the Fiat line-up to the various Volkswagen BlueMotion cars and their equivalents elsewhere in the VW Group.
The new 1.6 engine is being offered with maximum power outputs of 105bhp and 120bhp, and it's the 105bhp one that concerns us here. Eco versions (there are two, identical except in the amount of equipment supplied as standard) have their ECUs remapped in the interests of improved fuel economy, along with higher gear ratios, improved aerodynamics and tyres with lower rolling resistance.
Fiat says there is no difference in performances compared with the non-Eco cars, so we're talking about a top speed of 116mph and 0-62mph in 11.3 seconds. More on that later: for now, the figures we're really interested in are the ones relating to fuel economy and CO2 emissions.
In the other 105bhp MultiJet Bravos, these are 57.6mpg and 129g/km respectively. The various revisions to the Eco cars have a positive effect on these statistics, which improve to 62.8mpg and 119g/km. The 5.2mpg improvement in economy is good news in itself, of course, and the CO2 figure brings the Eco down from VED Band C to Band B, which for this year means an £85 reduction in car tax (£60 for the following two years) and renders it exempt from the London congestion charge as from October, assuming that there isn't a change of policy under the capital's new administration.
With other eco-friendly models you have to pay a lot for this sort of improvement, but not in this case. You can't make a direct comparison for the higher-specification Dynamic model, since the only other 1.6-litre diesel Dynamic has the 120bhp engine; however, there are Eco and non-Eco versions of the same car with the Active trim level, and from that you can see that the Eco revisions add £295 to the list price.
Well, that's not bad going. The first year's saving in car tax takes a substantial bite out of £295, and the improved fuel economy should deal with the rest in the first couple of thousand miles, so the Eco should prove to be the wiser buy very quickly, even if you don't take congestion charge savings into account.
The only slight fly in the ointment is that although the Eco meets the current Euro 4 emissions regulations, it doesn't (unlike the other Bravo 1.6 diesels) meet the Euro 5 ones which come into force in two years' time. The reason for this is heavy with irony: achieving Euro 5 status actually means using more fuel and producing more CO2 (the regulations are concerned with limiting other, more poisonous but less taxable waste products), and in the required timescale it wasn't possible for Fiat to achieve Euro 5 with the Eco and also get under 120g/km.
Something had to give, so Fiat decided to forget about Euro 5 for now and concentrate on the CO2 emissions which have an immediate impact on fuel economy and taxation. I couldn't get a Fiat representative to say this, but I suspect that a Euro 5-compliant Eco, or something like it, will be along within the next couple of years.
I said I'd come back to performance, and here goes. As the figures already mention show, the Bravo Eco is not outstandingly quick in a straight line, but it feels much stronger than it actually is. That's because Fiat has devoted a lot of effort to making the 1.6 engine produce lots of power at very low revs. It develops nearly the maximum torque figure at 1500rpm (peaking 500rpm later), and the result is that a prod of the accelerator pedal produces impressive results even from such low engine speeds. This is not uncommon among diesels, of course, but the Bravo is particularly good at it.
Apart from being rather good fun, this characteristic of the engine also means that the high gearing creates no ill effects - you don't, for example, have to use a lower gear than you normally would in a given situation, which would completely ruin the whole effect. There's also no problem with the other Eco feature of low rolling resistance tyres; on the absolute limit I dare say you would notice a lack of grip, but in normal driving conditions I haven't found any problems so far.
As with all other Bravos, the Eco models do not score well for visibility, thanks to their thick windscreen pillars and insufficient amounts of glass at the rear. The interior isn't especially refined, though in fairness Fiat has never tried to market the Bravo as a premium car.
The Eco's structure is also exactly the same as that of the other cars in the range, so the Euro NCAP test results apply here, and they're quite impressive. The Bravo scored a maximum five stars for adult occupant protection (with cautionary remarks about "some risk of injury to the driver's femurs"), three out of five for child occupant protection (marks were lost for lack of information about safety features) and a rather disappointing two out of four for pedestrian protection.
As mentioned previously, there are two types of Eco. The cheaper of the two, at £14,150, is the Active, which comes with air-conditioning, remote central locking, electric front windows, a height-adjustable driver's seat, a steering wheel adjustable for both height and reach, the very well-tuned electric power steering, foglights, a trip computer, a stereo/CD player and Follow Me Home headlights.
For £1000 more you get the Dynamic, which gets all-round electric windows, 16" alloy wheels, dual-zone climate control air-conditioning, cruise control, lumbar adjustment for the driver's seat, a front armrest, a leather steering wheel, Blue&Me phone connectivity and the opportunity to link an MP3 player into the audio system.
Insurance is Group 6 for the Active and Group 7 for the Dynamic, though since there's no difference in the official economy and emissions figures the two cars should otherwise cost the same to run.
Add new comment