For products that break easily or don’t seem to meet quality standards, there’s a phrase that Filipinos commonly use, and that’s “made in China”. For GAC and their vehicles, though, that’s something they wish to disprove.
In order to give consumers, especially car owners, the best value for their money, manufacturers should be able to bring products that are modern, innovative, well-priced, and most importantly are reliable. It is these basic selling points that proper research and development are for.
Since the founding of GAC Motor in 2008, the brand wanted to bring production and sales of world-leading vehicles, engines, and accessories, all through its state-of-the-art R&D in automotive engineering technology. From the fully automatic stamping, precision-cast welding, eco-friendly painting, and flexible assembly, all their products are built from the ground up, so to speak.
So that’s for production, but what of their pricing? How does GAC address being competitive across different automotive segments? First off, they have their own in-house and global R&D network: Guangzhou Automotive Engineering Institute (GAEI). Another way for them to circumvent higher pricing is that their supply chain includes some of the top 10 suppliers worldwide such as Delphi, TRW, Visteon and Johnson Controls from the United States, Aisin and Denso from Japan, Siemens, Bosch and Continental from Germany, and Magna from Canada. Getting straight from the source (and in bulk, at that) also helps them keep costs to a minimum.
These factors combined make GAC comfortable in its being a strong challenger and presence in the global automotive market. With product offerings that GAC assures will impress, be reliable, and be worth every centavo you pay for, it seems GAC is on its way to delivering what its clients want and expect.
With that, GAC continues to challenge the more dominant and popular brands. In the same way that proper research, development, and engineering will make or break any product in the market, GAC looks to leave its mark in the former, not the latter.