1995 Fiat Bravo vs. 1952 Jeep CJ3A
To start off, 1995 Fiat Bravo is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Jeep CJ3A. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Jeep CJ3A would be higher. At 2,199 cc (4 cylinders), 1952 Jeep CJ3A is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1995 Fiat Bravo (80 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 21 more horse power than 1952 Jeep CJ3A. (59 HP @ 3600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1995 Fiat Bravo should accelerate faster than 1952 Jeep CJ3A. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Jeep CJ3A weights approximately 100 kg more than 1995 Fiat Bravo.
Because 1952 Jeep CJ3A is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1995 Fiat Bravo. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1952 Jeep CJ3A will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 1952 Jeep CJ3A (145 Nm) has 34 more torque (in Nm) than 1995 Fiat Bravo. (111 Nm). This means 1952 Jeep CJ3A will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1995 Fiat Bravo.
Compare all specifications:
| 1995 Fiat Bravo | 1952 Jeep CJ3A | |
| Make | Fiat | Jeep |
| Model | Bravo | CJ3A |
| Year Released | 1995 | 1952 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1372 cc | 2199 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 80 HP | 59 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 3600 RPM |
| Torque | 111 Nm | 145 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1010 kg | 1110 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4030 mm | 3130 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1460 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1630 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2040 mm |
