Research paper

[91GTE]

Im writitng a research paper, more of an interest paper, and im choosing to argue on how 80-90s japanese sports cars were way better than most auto during that time in performance, drivibility, styling, and overall car. I am going to focus more on performance, races and such and also specific engines.

I was wondering if this is even valid and can actually prove this,Is there other thing i can write relating to support this topic?

 

[JB91389]

ie: Ever see a supra wireharness out of the engine? See how many connectors and sensors. I dont think most cars in the 80's had that many. The supra had so many "luxerys" for the 80's. Power window, seat, mirrors, TEMS and so on...

 

[Wills7MGTE]

Well you could talk about the 2JZ being able to handle 900+ on stock internals, the 13b being an effective rotary engine that allowed the rx7 to handle better than most cars of the time and alos out accelerate ferraris and porsches, discuss the R32 and 33 GT-R's and thier capabilities to outperform many exotics. Theres lots of room there but yeah its a valid point you're making. GOOD LUCK.

 

[tissimo]

doesnt sound like a good idea.. i doubt you will find much material as its more of an opinion then actual facts that you will be able to find.

 

[JustAnotherVictim]

First say bigger is not always better. Except 3.0>2.5

 

[limequat]

Im writitng a research paper, more of an interest paper, and im choosing to argue on how 80-90s japanese sports cars were way better than most auto during that time in performance, drivibility, styling, and overall car. I am going to focus more on performance, races and such and also specific engines.

I was wondering if this is even valid and can actually prove this,Is there other thing i can write relating to support this topic?

Performance: This should be easy enough to evaluate with some old Car and Driver Magazines. However, I think you may be dissappointed. Though the old Camaros and Mustangs where piles of shit, they were still decently quick.

Driveability: Tough to evaluate, I don't think you'll find many metrics.

Styling: Subjective. No place in your paper unless it's an opinion piece.

Overall: Again tough to support. What makes a car "better" than another? Old GM's were shitboxes, but people could afford them, and it took American jobs to build them. Is that better?

If I were writing the paper, I'd narrow it down to things that are easier to prove: technology and durability.

 

[Mr.PFloyd]

i would also include pricing and sales, eventhough it might not be in your favor. But thats is what a paper is supposed to be; the pros and cons of a subject because a successful paper will not ignore other facts.

 

[91GTE]

Well you could talk about the 2JZ being able to handle 900+ on stock internals, the 13b being an effective rotary engine that allowed the rx7 to handle better than most cars of the time and alos out accelerate ferraris and porsches, discuss the R32 and 33 GT-R's and thier capabilities to outperform many exotics. Theres lots of room there but yeah its a valid point you're making. GOOD LUCK.

Oh yea good ideas, I also wanted to add how Mazda was first Japanese import to win Le mans with thier 4-rotor 747B car. The rotary engine is now banned from Le Mans after that dominating win.