I would like to respectfully disagree on a few points.
I had experience with a 3 door Stilo Abarth and currently drive a Bravo T-Jet Sport.
The Stilo had on leather seats while the Bravo has cloth but I find the Bravo seats hold onto me a little better, the Stilo seats weren't all that comfortable though they looked better IMHO.
One of my biggest bugbears about the Stilo was the retarded armrest :bang:, I couldn't keep it down while having to change gears, it really was only useful on the freeway (if I didn't have to change gears there too as the NA engine needs more winding) but I still prefer my seating position, with the armrest, in the Bravo. The cushioning on the door is great for my right arm while it holds the steering wheel while I personally can put my left arm on the armrest and at the same time hold the steering wheel or still change gears without having to move the armrest out of the way. The only other cars I find to have a better seating position are BMWs, VAG cars are horrible.
The perceived interior quality of the Stilo was better agreed; someone cared a bit more but I wasn't a fan of how it looked but everyone is entitled to their opinion here though. The Bravo isn't a Rolls Royce in the back but I find it more comfortable than the back of the Stilo; I wanted to die a little when we took 120 mile trip and I rode in the back of the Abarth.
The features in the Stilo were smarter too and this was great and all until these features stopped working. The keyless start feature for example had me stuck on halfway on a cross-country trip because the "emergency start" procedure wouldn't work either and the sunroof also gave up on me.
It felt a good magical in the back when you took a corner... slower. The Bravo is a lot more planted in corners and gives a lot more feedback (in Sport mode) through the wheel. It corners like its on rails when compared to the Stilo, an Abarth by the way, which wallowed. In-gear acceleration for the Abarth was quite stellar between 60 MPH and about 90 though but I love how elastic my Sport's engine is; I hardly need to get out of 6th gear on the freeway.
All in all I sort of understood why the Bravo was a simpler car than the Stilo and learnt to appreciate it, it is more reliable and was overall lighter than the Bravo. Seeing as the features exist, Fiat could have easily made these available on the Bravo but they didn't and for that you must ask yourself why.
To top it off it looks simply seductive compared to the Teutonic design of the Stilo. That Abarth sounds delectable though. :worship:
I have owned a 2003 1.6 dynamic Stilo, which I think is a unbelieveble nice car to look at. It still looks modern.
I can compare both cars quite good I think, so there we go:
Pro Stilo:
- Better seats than the Bravo (even with the Bravo sport interior)
- Better armrest than the Bravo (goes further to the front)
- Hight of the seat (goes lower than the Bravo)
In the end, the driving position of the Stilo is much better.
- Gas bonnet struts on the Stilo and not on the Bravo
- Noise inside (same as the Bravo)
- Dials were easier to read
Pro's Bravo
- Much modern and better preforming engines (have to say: 1.6 16v was really fast for 103HP)
- Nicer interior to look at
- Bigger boot
- Less electrical problems than the Stilo
Wow, it suprises me. I really love my Bravo for the looks and performance, but if you sum up the things, I really think the TS got it right. The Stilo is a better car. I just can't imagine more Pro's for the Bravo.
Offcourse there are some things better on the Bravo (like multimedia) but that are just things that the Stilo can't do anything about because it's older.
When you look at the basic of the car, the Stilo is the better car I think.