GAC Motor South Africa Accelerates into 2025 with Bold Innovation and Industry-First Moves
Driving Change with Transparent Pricing
In a move that underscores its commitment to transparency and customer-centric values, GAC Motor South Africa has announced a strategic price reduction on two of its most popular models — the GAC Emzoom and GAC Emkoo. This significant pricing realignment is not a promotional gimmick but rather a result of improved foreign exchange conditions and global cost-saving efficiencies that the company has opted to pass directly to consumers.
'Our customers deserve to benefit from favourable market conditions,' says Leslie Ramsoomar, Managing Director of GAC Motor South Africa. 'This price drop reflects our investment in the market and our belief in long-term, honest relationships with our consumers and partners.'
As of January 2025, the new retail pricing is:
Emzoom Comfort : R419,900
Emzoom Executive : R439,900
Emzoom R-Style : R489,900
Emkoo Executive : R519,900
Emkoo Executive Plus
: R559,900
This move aligns with the company's broader strategy to increase accessibility and value, while reinforcing its long-term commitment to the South African market.
A Warranty That Redefines Industry Standards
Taking customer confidence to a new level, GAC Motor South Africa recently unveiled an industry-first Lifetime Engine Warranty across its entire vehicle lineup. This groundbreaking offer covers an unlimited number of years and mileage for the original vehicle owner, provided the car is serviced at authorised GAC Motor service centres using approved parts.
This bold warranty initiative not only sets a new benchmark in customer service but also reflects GAC Motor's confidence in the quality, durability, and craftsmanship of its vehicles. It's a move designed to inspire trust and long-term loyalty among South African drivers.
'This warranty is a powerful promise — a declaration of the confidence we have in our products,' says Ramsoomar. 'It's about peace of mind, lifelong value, and building a brand that people can truly believe in.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Understanding the cost implications of the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act on the property sector
If foreign investors exit the South African property market, property prices may cool. Image: Leon Lestrade, Independent Newspapers. The US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 will negatively affect the local property sector's investment dynamics and have cost implications if it becomes law. The bill was introduced by Ronny Jackson, a congressman from Texas, in April. For it to become a law, it will need to be approved by the House and Senate before being signed by President Donald Trump. It accuses South Africa of undermining the United States' interests by maintaining close relationships with the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, nations that are Pretoria's strong allies and key trading partners. On investment dynamics, Dr Farai Nyika, an academic programme leader in the School of Public Administration at the Management College of Southern Africa(MANCOSA), says South Africa's property sector depends significantly on both domestic and international investment. He said foreign involvement includes not only direct investment in physical developments but also the purchase of South African property-related shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). 'Should the bill become US law, the geopolitical risks associated with doing business in South Africa may deter foreign investors. This could result in a slowdown in physical property developments by foreign investors and a sell-off of South African property stocks. "Such a sell-off would constrain these companies' ability to raise capital, potentially leading to reduced profitability, operational cutbacks, and, disastrously, job losses,' Nyika told "Independent Media Property". The academic leader said it is key to note that the bill, in its current form, may change to broaden penalties beyond what is currently stated, so they could only speculate on its current form. He said it should be remembered that the bill is really targeting South African individuals, rather than the country as a whole. 'However, perceptions matter more than reality and legal precision; for example, though Zimbabwean politicians were the target of U.S sanctions in 2003, the Zim government claimed that the country's subsequent economic hardships were the result of the entire country being sanctioned. "By extension-sanctions that target individuals indirectly harm the economy. Because many property investors will say that they do not want to do business in a country that the 'US is sanctioning'. "Perversely, there could be some economic benefits to the local property market from the U.S sanctioning local politicians. If foreign investors exit the market, property prices may cool. "This could make housing more affordable for locals who have previously been priced out-particularly in urban centres like Cape Town, where gentrification has greatly limited social mobility and access to property ownership,' Nyika said. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading With regards to cost implications, he said a large proportion of building materials, especially high-end fixtures for luxury properties and solar technologies, are imported. He said in a country that has been grappling with persistent load shedding and a transition to cleaner energy, the demand for solar and energy-efficient solutions is rising. 'However, if the bill disrupts trade relations or leads to broader sanctions, the cost of these imported materials may increase, raising construction and development costs. This could slow down South Africa's Just Energy Transition in the short term.' With that said, Nyika said economic pressure often fosters innovation. He said historical precedents show that sanctions or trade restrictions can trigger industrial growth-as was the case in both Zimbabwe and apartheid-era South Africa during the 1960s and 70s. 'In the long run, if the South African government were to prioritise industrial policy and local manufacturing, the country could reduce reliance on imports. "This would benefit the property sector by fostering domestic production of certain formerly imported building materials and solar items, improving resilience, and potentially creating new economic opportunities to expand local property.' Asked whether the South Africa property sector will have resort in this regard, Dr Thandile Ncwana, also an Academic Programme Leader at the same institution, said but some of the possible strategic play for South Africa in this situation should the bill be approved, is to mitigate escalation and maintain its relationship with the US by considering engaging in high-level bilateral diplomacy aimed at clarifying its foreign policy positions while reaffirming its commitment to democratic values, trade and multilateral cooperation. She said proactive parliamentary diplomacy, Track II dialogue forums, and regular engagement with the US Congress and civil society actors could help reframe South Africa's stance as one of principled non-alignment rather than strategic antagonism. 'Because reinforcing bilateral economic ties and highlighting areas of mutual benefit, such as climate action, infrastructure development and health, can serve as diplomatic buffers. The government also have a chance to carefully balance between asserting its foreign policy independence and avoiding diplomatic or economic isolation. "This can be achieved by adopting a transparent foreign policy communication strategy, clearly articulating the principles behind its international engagements, and avoiding actions that may be interpreted as tacit support for states or groups under U.S. sanctions,' Ncwana said. She added that multilateralism should remain at the heart of South Africa's diplomacy, and efforts must be intensified to build consensus with African partners, BRICS allies, and Western institutions alike to maintain strategic flexibility and avoid becoming a casualty of great-power rivalry. Politically, she said South Africa should adopt a dual-track diplomacy strategy that preserves its non-aligned international stance while actively engaging U.S. policymakers to dispel misconceptions about its foreign policy positions. 'This includes convening high-level bilateral dialogues, leveraging multilateral platforms like the United Nations and African Union to clarify its principled positions, and re-establishing structured parliamentary exchanges with the US Congress. "South Africa's leadership can also benefit from a strategic public diplomacy campaign that communicates its commitment to constitutional democracy, human rights, and peaceful conflict resolution principles historically shared with the US. "These efforts can de-escalate tensions and rebuild political trust, allowing space for honest disagreement without undermining the broader relationship.' Ncwana said that overall, the South African government can lastly play a strategic move by enhancing interdepartmental coordination, particularly between the Departments of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), Trade and Industry, and National Treasury to ensure cohesive messaging and responsiveness to external developments like the US legislative process. Independent Media Property
TimesLIVE
4 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Five things to know about Sassa review process, who should review and why
The South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) is continuing its review process for social grant beneficiaries suspected of having additional sources of income not disclosed to the agency. The agency said the review is intended to ensure continued eligibility and prevent misuse of funds. Here are five things to know about the review: 1. Who should review Social grant beneficiaries who did not declare their income to the agency when applying for the grant are advised to go for the review process. This includes those who have had changes in their financial circumstances or that of their spouse. Sassa has notified beneficiaries who should go for reviews through mail, SMS, home visits, hand delivered letter or public announcements. 'Beneficiaries are strongly advised not to ignore these messages or related alerts as they may contain important instructions regarding the grant review process,' Sassa said. "[When] a high risk of undue payment has been identified, Sassa may withhold payment on one payment run to prompt beneficiaries to come for urgent review.' Those who are unsure of their income are advised to declare all their sources of income to Sassa officials who will determine which one will be considered. 2. Why you should review The review helps to ensure the money goes to right people. Failure to review may result in the suspension or termination of the grant until the review is completed. 3. Where to do review The review takes place at designated Sassa offices. Beneficiaries are urged to visit their local Sassa office to check their status. The agency said it plans to introduce online review options in future. If you are unable to visit Sassa offices for review, you may appoint a power of attorney or procurator who may conduct the review on your behalf following proper guidelines. 4. Documents needed Beneficiaries are required to bring ID documents, recent proof of income, proof of termination of employment if no longer working, three months bank statements, birth certificates of dependents, proof of residential address and proof of marital status if married or an affidavit if single. Refugees must also present valid refugee documentation. 'In cases where [an] alternative method of identification or bar-coded ID is not yet available for South African residence, beneficiaries should submit proof that an application for the required documents has been made with the department of home affairs.' 5. The review is free Beneficiaries are not required to pay for any Sassa service, including the review process.
The Citizen
4 hours ago
- The Citizen
Reserve Bank and Ibex reach final settlement of R6.3 billion on Steinhoff fraud
Steinhoff imploded in December 2017 when the auditors refused to sign off on the financial statements due to irregularities. The South African Reserve Bank (Sarb) has reached a final settlement with Ibex of R6.3 billion after an extensive and complex investigation into the affairs of Steinhoff International Holdings and people or entities regarding possible contraventions of exchange control regulations. Ibex was formerly known as Steinhoff International Holdings. After its investigation, Sarb took administrative action against certain entities within and associated with the Steinhoff Group, because they did not comply with the exchange control regulations. The discovery of the now well-known accounting irregularities in the Steinhoff Group in December 2017 led to a sharp and immediate decline in the Steinhoff share price on both the Frankfurt and Johannesburg stock exchanges, eroding approximately 90% of the company's market capitalisation. ALSO READ: What we know so far about the secret PwC report on Steinhoff According to the Sarb the Steinhoff Group's external debt exceeded 10 billion euros (approximately R155 billion) at the time. The crisis threatened the Steinhoff Group's continued existence and risked consequences, including forced asset sales or 'fire sales', significant losses to South African and foreign financial institutions and investors and extensive job losses. There was also a risk that it could significantly affect South Africa's reputation as one of the most robust and well-regulated financial markets in the world, Sarb points out. Steps to restructure Steinhoff debt Complex multi-jurisdictional debt restructuring and settlement processes were implemented between 2018 and 2023 to prevent an uncontrolled liquidation and mitigate the financial distress facing the Steinhoff Group. These processes resulted in the Steinhoff Group fully repaying more than R28 billion owed to South African banks in 2018, as well as compensation to other South African investors amounting to approximately R18.5 billion as part of the global settlement, that involved a total settlement value of approximately R29.6 billion at the time and was approved and sanctioned by international and local courts. ALSO READ: Almost R67 million from Steinhoff accused forfeited to the state The Sarb says the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) was one of the main beneficiaries of the global settlement due to its investment in the Steinhoff Group. South African creditors and banks were able to exit and recover all or most of their money, as foreign creditors agreed to a restructuring of their debt and a deferral of their rights. According to the Sarb, these foreign financial creditors granted forbearance of their claims against members of the Steinhoff Group, ultimately to 30 June 2026, to enable the settlement of various other creditors, who were mainly South African, first. Disputes between Ibex and Sarb Various disputes arose between the Ibex Group and the Sarb in early 2023 regarding the Sarb's administrative actions against Ibex Group due to various alleged contraventions of the exchange control regulations revealed by the investigation. The Sarb says these disputes resulted in multiple legal proceedings between the parties, including the intervention of at least one of the Ibex Group's financial creditors. One of these disputes involved the forfeiture of an amount of about R6.3 billion for the benefit of the state, while others concerned the Sarb's blocking and prohibition orders over the Ibex Group's funds and assets that arose as part of the investigation. In line with legal advice and after careful consideration by the Sarb, all the disputes between the Ibex Group and the Sarb were ultimately resolved in a comprehensive settlement. ALSO READ: NPA secures first conviction and sentence in Steinhoff fraud case The Sarb says In concluding the settlement agreement and fully and finally resolving the disputes between them, the Sarb and the Ibex Group considered the public interest, the Sarb's mandate to enforce the exchange control regulations and the importance of enhancing investor confidence in South Africa. They also wanted to promote regulatory certainty by allowing the Ibex Group to settle its contractual obligations to its foreign financial creditors. 'In fulfilling these aims, the Ibex Group forfeited R6.3 billion plus interest of its funds to the state in full and final settlement of the Sarb's enforcement action against the Ibex Group regarding the alleged contraventions,' the Sarb says. Ibex granted permission to wind down and repay creditors In return, the Ibex Group withdrew its legal challenge to the forfeiture. In addition, the Sarb granted the Ibex Group permission to implement and take all steps necessary for the Ibex Group to implement its Dutch court-approved structured winding down process and repay its creditors and operational expenses. By agreement between the Sarb and Ibex Group, the High Court set aside the prohibition orders restricting the Ibex Group's ability to deal with some of its shares in Pepkor Holdings Limited and the Sarb agreed not to take any further administrative or enforcement action against the Ibex Group regarding the alleged contraventions. In addition, the Ibex Group and the Sarb, with the support of the majority of the Ibex Group's current creditors, withdrew all the litigation they instituted, while the Ibex Group and the financial creditors abandoned the judgments obtained in the course of the litigation. 'The Sarb as well as the Ibex Group consider the settlement reasonable, proportionate and justifiable considering the complex and competing interests. 'Considering the long history of the Steinhoff/Ibex matter, the wider ramification of the continued dispute between the Sarb and the Ibex Group for investor appetite for future investments in South Africa and the interests in finality, the Sarb and the Ibex Group consider this final settlement to be in the best interests of South Africa,' the Sarb says.
