Which Mitsubishi Bravo version to buy

Start with the three 0.7 MT names exactly as listed. They are not the same car.

Start with the three 0.7 MT names exactly as listed. They are not the same car.

If the question is “which Bravo to buy,” the arithmetic points to 0.7 MT 64 hp when you want the most torque and AWD, 0.7 MT 52 hp when you want the lightest 4-cylinder RWD, and 0.7 MT 42 hp only if you specifically want the 3-cylinder carbureted layout. There is no price field in the data, so “extra money” here means extra mass, extra power, extra torque, and AWD versus RWD — not a sticker.

Bravo specs comparison: 0.7 MT 64 hp vs 52 hp vs 42 hp

0.7 MT 64 hp makes 22 hp more than 0.7 MT 42 hp (64 − 42) and 12 hp more than 0.7 MT 52 hp (64 − 52). 0.7 MT 52 hp makes 10 hp more than 0.7 MT 42 hp (52 − 42). In relative terms that is about 52% more peak power on the 64 hp trim versus the 42 hp trim, about 23% more versus the 52 hp trim, and about 24% more on the 52 hp trim versus the 42 hp trim.

Torque is the larger split. 0.7 MT 64 hp’s 94 Nm is 38 Nm above 0.7 MT 42 hp (94 − 56) and 36 Nm above 0.7 MT 52 hp (94 − 58). The two RWD versions are only 2 Nm apart (58 − 56). The 64 hp engine also peaks torque 500 rpm earlier than the 52 hp unit (3500 vs 4000) and 1500 rpm earlier than the 42 hp unit (3500 vs 5000). If you care about pulling a Microvan without waiting for high revs, that 94 Nm at 3500 rpm is the number that separates AWD 0.7 MT from the other two.

Displacement is almost identical: 659 cc on 0.7 MT 64 hp versus 660 cc on both RWD versions (1 cc difference). Specific output, using those displacements, is about 97.1 hp per litre on 0.7 MT 64 hp (64 ÷ 0.659), about 78.8 hp per litre on 0.7 MT 52 hp (52 ÷ 0.660), and about 63.6 hp per litre on 0.7 MT 42 hp (42 ÷ 0.660). The 64 hp trim is therefore the densest of the three; the carbureted 3-cylinder is the least dense.

Cylinders and feed: 0.7 MT 64 hp and 0.7 MT 52 hp are both 4 Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, Gasoline, No boost, Front, longitudinal, Distributed injection (multi-point). 0.7 MT 42 hp is 3 Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, Gasoline, No boost, Front, longitudinal, Carburetor. Same gearbox on all three: Manual, 5 speeds. Drive is the other binary: AWD only on 0.7 MT 64 hp; RWD on 0.7 MT 52 hp and 0.7 MT 42 hp.

Engine: power per litre and rpm

0.7 MT 64 hp: 64 hp / 47 kW at 6500 rpm, 94 Nm at 3500 rpm, 659 cc, Gasoline, 4 Inline, No boost, multi-point.

0.7 MT 52 hp: 52 hp / 38 kW at 7000 rpm, 58 Nm at 4000 rpm, 660 cc, Gasoline, 4 Inline, No boost, multi-point.

0.7 MT 42 hp: 42 hp / 31 kW at 6000 rpm, 56 Nm at 5000 rpm, 660 cc, Gasoline, 3 Inline, No boost, Carburetor.

The 52 hp 0.7 MT is the highest-revving peak (7000 rpm). The 42 hp 0.7 MT peaks power earliest (6000 rpm) but torque latest (5000 rpm). The 64 hp 0.7 MT sits in the middle for power rpm (6500) and is earliest for torque (3500). None of the three lists boost: all are No.

Dimensions, weight, and kg per horsepower

Kerb weight is 960 kg on 0.7 MT 64 hp and 830 kg on both 0.7 MT 52 hp and 0.7 MT 42 hp. AWD costs 130 kg (960 − 830) versus either RWD 0.7 MT. Gross weight is not measured on all three. Ground clearance is 170 mm on all three. Fuel tank is 40 L on all three. Wheel sizes are not measured on all three.

Mass per horsepower (kerb ÷ hp):

Even with the extra 130 kg, 0.7 MT 64 hp is the lightest per horsepower. 0.7 MT 52 hp is 1.0 kg/hp heavier than the 64 hp trim (16.0 − 15.0) and still about 3.8 kg/hp lighter than the 42 hp trim (19.8 − 16.0). If you want RWD and the better of the two 830 kg cars on this ratio, that is 0.7 MT 52 hp.

Performance, mpg, and what is not measured

0–100, top speed, city consumption, highway consumption, mixed consumption, CO2, and eco class are not measured for 0.7 MT 64 hp, 0.7 MT 52 hp, and 0.7 MT 42 hp. Do not treat a missing cell as “this Microvan has no such parameter.” The file simply does not record it.

Because those figures are not measured, ranking “fastest” or “best mpg” from 0–100 or fuel-use numbers is not possible. What you can rank is on-paper density and mass: highest hp/L and lowest kg/hp is 0.7 MT 64 hp; middle is 0.7 MT 52 hp; lowest density and highest kg/hp is 0.7 MT 42 hp. Fuel tank volume does not break the tie: 40 L on every version.

Generations: what changed (and what did not)

There is 1 generation. Production start 1989-01-01, stop 1990-12-31. Body: Microvan. Modifications: 3. No restyling generation exists in the data, so there is no “later Bravo” that added a sixth speed, a different tank, or a different clearance. Comparing generations is therefore a single-row comparison: every version is first-generation, 1989–1990, Microvan.

What did not change across the three 0.7 MT cars: Manual 5, 40 L tank, 170 mm clearance, Independent, spring front, Dependent, spring rear, Disc front, Drum rear, Gasoline, No boost, Front, longitudinal, 4 valves per cylinder.

What did change: 659 vs 660 cc; 4 vs 3 cylinders; multi-point vs Carburetor; 64 / 52 / 42 hp; 94 / 58 / 56 Nm; AWD vs RWD; 960 vs 830 kg.

Reliability and problems: what the numbers allow

There is no failure-rate, recall, or workshop field in the data. Reliability talk that invents typical kei-van issues is not this catalogue. What the file does allow is mechanical complexity as listed:

If you want the fewest listed drive and injection differences versus the rest of the range, 0.7 MT 52 hp sits between the AWD 64 hp car and the carbureted 3-cylinder.

Which version to choose: decision using the numbers

Choose 0.7 MT 64 hp if AWD is the point of buying a Bravo and you want the torque that comes with it. You get 64 hp, 94 Nm at 3500 rpm, 659 cc, 4 Inline, Distributed injection (multi-point), and you pay 130 kg versus the RWD pair. Best hp per litre (~97.1) and best kg per hp (15.0) in this generation.

Choose 0.7 MT 52 hp if you want RWD, 830 kg, and a 4 Inline multi-point engine without AWD. You give up 12 hp and 36 Nm versus 0.7 MT 64 hp, and you gain 10 hp and 2 Nm versus 0.7 MT 42 hp. Peak power is the highest-rpm of the three (7000). kg per hp (~16.0) is close to the 64 hp car despite 12 hp less, because the kerb weight is 130 kg lower.

Choose 0.7 MT 42 hp only if the 3 Inline Carburetor specification is what you want. Power and torque are the lowest (42 hp, 56 Nm), torque peaks latest (5000 rpm), and kg per hp is the worst (~19.8). Displacement is still 660 cc, tank 40 L, clearance 170 mm, Manual 5, RWD — same chassis numbers as 0.7 MT 52 hp, not the same engine.

Do not choose between generations. There is one generation (1989–1990), three 0.7 MT versions, Microvan only. The buy decision is which of those three 0.7 MT rows matches the drive and output you need, not which “later Bravo” to wait for.

0–100, top speed, mpg, wheel size, gross weight, CO2, and eco class remain not measured on every version. Any shortlist should treat those as unknown, not as equal.