Have you made your purchase decision?

[Baldeagle]

#3 -must test drive. I want to feel the suspension differences between the BRZ and FRS. Must also make sure the back seat is functional, even if it will only be used a few times per year. Would like to see crash tests and actual road tests. Final price is important too. If the prices are artificially elevated due to high initial demand, I may use that as an opportunity to wait and learn about any “first model year” car problems. In many cases the second year of a new generation, especially a first generation, is more reliable.

[bestwheelbase]

Nice to see others are waiting on an honest test drive before making a decision.

Non-refundable deposits are ridiculous.

[bestwheelbase]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

#3 -must test drive. I want to feel the suspension differences between the BRZ and FRS.

Though suspension tuning can easily be adjusted with the aftermarket products that will soon be available, I think this is a very interest comparison that has been basically overlooked. Other than a couple journos who mentioned different spring/damper rates and "The BRZ pushes more" -- we really don't know how the two compare until we drive them.

[86fanatic]

Test drive is essential. I know how I want the car to feel and drive, but I need to confirm for myself and not vicariously through reviews.

Also with small cars like this, fitting comfortably is always a concern. If I can't find a comfortable seating position during the test drive, that's a deal breaker.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by 86fanatic

Exactly, especially in publicly traded companies the "majority shareholder" tends to own 10% of the company or less. Majority shareholder also tends to mean the shareholder who controls the most shares, not the shareholder who controls 51% of the company.

In the case of FHI, it does look like Toyota is the majority shareholder:

http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/ir/share_info/share.html

Toyota is not the majority shareholder. They are the LARGEST shareholder. Please look up the definitions.

Originally Posted by Alias

Guess you don't know business world that well. Owning 51% of the company in no way means that you can "single handly make the business decisions" for the company unless you're part of hollywood movies like Mr. Deeds.

Most companies require 2/3 majority vote of shareholders for major decisions. In most states it's a legal requirement, and even where it isn't there are still laws to protect the minority shareholders and if the decisions don't make sense for the business they can sue the majority shareholder's pants off.

A person or company that owns 50% plus one of the stock in a publicly-traded company. This allows the majority shareholder outright control of the company's operations, especially the election of its board of directors. Some majority shareholders are not involved in the daily operations of the company, but most are. Indeed, the majority shareholder is often the company's founder.

http://financial-dictionary.thefreed...ty+Stockholder


Anyways thanks. You proved my point. Toyota owns 16.7% which isn't anywhere close to 51% and much less than the 2/3rd needed to make decisions.

Also depends how the companies charter is setup whether it requires 51% majority or a "supermajority."

A corporate amendment in a company's charter requiring a large majority (anywhere from 67-90%) of shareholders to approve important changes, such as a merger.

This is sometimes called a "supermajority amendment". Often a company's charter will simply call for a majority (more than 50%) to make these types of decisions.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...#axzz1p8lH9Uaj


So please don't come in here and act like every company needs a supermajority cause they don't. Do some? Yes. But you would require at least 51% (at the minimum) or even more strict a supermajority which can be anywhere from (2/3rds) up to 90% depending on the company's charter.

[86fanatic]

A lot of it also has to do with class of shares, voting rights, how the company ownership is structured (preferred shares), etc. Also foreign corporations have a whole other set of laws. It's not as simple as Toyota only owns 17% therefore they don't have the ability to make decisions for the company.

Anyway, we probably shouldn't get sidetracked into a discussion about financial laws and definitions, it's kind of a tangent to the point of the thread.

[Deslock]

Refundable deposit has been down since last September, but I'll purchase it only after I drive it.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by 86fanatic

A lot of it also has to do with class of shares, voting rights, how the company ownership is structured (preferred shares), etc. Also foreign corporations have a whole other set of laws. It's not as simple as Toyota only owns 17% therefore they don't have the ability to make decisions for the company.

Anyway, we probably shouldn't get sidetracked into a discussion about financial laws and definitions, it's kind of a tangent to the point of the thread.

I was just refuting Saber_TRD and your statement that TMC has majority share of FHI/Subaru. Which is incorrect. They are the largest single shareholder. But that does not equate to majority ownership. That is all.

Also I never said that Toyota doesn't make decisions involving FHI. Just that they don't have majority decision making capacity. There are 83% other votes out there. 83>17. They have some say, but not the only say.

This is ft86club, we are meant to go off topic. FT= forgot topic.

[86fanatic]

Originally Posted by tranzformer

This is ft86club, we are meant to go off topic. FT= forgot topic.

Sorry - I'm new here, still figuring my way around :happy0180:

[switchlanez]

FHI is a conglomerate that provides products in the automotive, industrial power, and aerospace industries. What's the relevance of debating Toyota's ownership within the entire FHI conglomerate as a whole? Do we care how much say they have in industrial power or aerospace? What if automotive consitutes only 15% of FHI activities? I'm not saying Toyota is in charge of Subaru but we'd have to drill down and debate on that level because the other industries are irrelevent (to me).

The BRZ is a small niche under the Subaru subcategory under the automotive subcategory under the entire FHI conglomerate. Under the BRZ niche Toyota probably had a significantly larger say than it does in FHI as a whole.

[Alias]

Originally Posted by 86fanatic

Sorry - I'm new here, still figuring my way around :happy0180:

In time you'll learn that some of the people here with the largest post counts also have the largest egos to satiate and don't really know as much as they would like to pretend they do.

There is absolutely no reason to apologize for having good manners and trying to get a thread back on topic.

[Draco-REX]

It's all but sure that there will be many more FR-S units in the US than the BRZ. I think there will be a good chance to find local availability.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by Alias

In time you'll learn that some of the people here with the largest post counts also have the largest egos to satiate and don't really know as much as they would like to pretend they do.

There is absolutely no reason to apologize for having good manners and trying to get a thread back on topic.

Seriously?

[FRSDREAMER]

Lexus: Luxury Vehicles
Toyota: Economy Vehicles
Scion: Highly Customizable and Affordable Vehicles