Nissan’s 2012 Olympic fleet would have averaged 60g/km of CO2, half of what was required by the games’ organisers.
The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) chose BMW as its automotive partner for the games, saying that the German firm best matched its average 120g/km emissions targets, while also dismissing relying on electric vehicles for the games.
A senior Nissan source said the firm’s average emissions were the lowest of all the bidders, and the LOCOG’s decision would be a “backwards step” for the capital’s chances of creating an electric infrastructure.
“We have no issue with BMW getting the contract,” said the source, “but we feel the LOCOG have missed out here on a golden opportunity to kick-start a proper electric infrastructure in London.
“The Renault-Nissan fleet would have averaged 60g/km and would have provided the legacy they’re so keen to see with London.”
Half of the 4000-strong fleet would have been made up of all-electric Nissan Leafs, which are due to go into production in a year’s time.
Hilton Holloway blog: An Olympic-sized scandalBMW joins 2012 OlympicsBlow for London’s electric networkNissan's Olympic bid 'was feasible'Full story: Nissan's Olympic frustration
Twitter - follow autocar.co.ukSee all the latest Nissan reviews, news and video
Join the debate
Add your comment
Re: Nissan's '60g/km' Olympic plan
-TBH, i see your point, but it is not me that keeps placing the threads up for comment is it? that is Autocar!
-as for Lord Coe, he is at the top of the tree for it, the book stops at him, it makes no difference who down the line made what decision as he is at the head of the line and thus ultimately responsible; hence why i say "Lord Coe must GO!!"
-the decision has been made now, totally i agree, no going back; but it was the wrong deicsion made for the wrong reasons; i think now BM will suffer from negative publicity, they have not got the greenest cars (by miles) and did not give the UK the best legacy.
-they did not give people the chance to get lots of new jobs, they did not give the chance for young people to train in technical subjects, they did not give UK engineering firms and manufacturers the chance to get even more orders and business, they did not give the UK the chance to led the world, they did not give a legacy (accept nearly twice as much pollution) to London, they did basically nothing for the UK or London at all.
-so the next time people are thinking of buying a new car, that warm feeling you get from a Jag or a Nissan or a Honda or a Toyota (things that are made here) and of course that even warmer feeling you get from Nissan who treid to give the UK so much
- well you would not get that from a BM, all you get from a BM is the knowledge that they did not give the UK and all its people a wonderful opportunity and the UK more jobs and the world led - they (BM) did not give the UK any of that
- enjoy your BMWs
Re: Nissan's '60g/km' Olympic plan
4rephill - again you do not understand, it not about who won, its about what was lost, the only people stamping the feet will be the UK people who as a result of Lord Coe's decision do not have a job - they will be stamping their feet whilst waiting at the job centre.
-so i hope you are proud of yourself for your lacking of understanding, for your compession to your fellow countrymen/women and for the UK to lead the world in an industry
-so as said, its not about who won, its about what we lost - maybe you get that, maybe you do not but that is what it is about.
-also it is starting to turn out to be and i think will be a PR loser for BM; pity really as they have spent all that money on PR saying how green they are but they cannot even lead in green tech after all their hype - ironically quite funny.
Re: Nissan's '60g/km' Olympic plan
Caps are you sure the decision lay with old Seb? Wasn't it more likely it lay with a committee further down the food chain and that may well have been based on instruction over Lord Coe's head along the lines of "less legacy less cost. There is a public debt crisis after all." Right or wrong, you have your point, but does it need to be focused on one individual and an individual who probably was a major contributer to the award of the Olympics to the City of London? Also thing some of the other posters have a point that you have flogged this particular point to death over a number of threads.