(FORTUNE Magazine) – ''I do not want to pretend to an excess of virtue or public spiritedness,'' wrote Chairman Gerald Greenwald of Chrysler Motors, instantly alerting readers of his article in the New York Times to the high probability that within four sentences he would be pretending to plenty of both. Chrysler puts on this high-minded act every year, always in the course of campaigning against big cars. And yet the present keyboarder is about to cite a powerful new reason for believing the gunboats of the Sixties will be coming back. ! Chrysler's act begins each year when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revs up to rule on whether to change the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require cars sold in America to get specified numbers of miles to a gallon. The invariable message from Iacoccaland: NHTSA must hold fast to the CAFE standards. We must have a national energy policy. We must reward autopersons who patriotically build fuel-efficient kiddy cars and penalize those peddling ''today's version of the land barge'' (that's from the Times article). If the penalties were heavy enough -- and Gerald postulated that fines against General Motors and Ford might aggregate $500 million if NHTSA were suitably tough -- the deficit would be reduced. Why do Chrysler folks talk this way? Do they sadistically enjoy seeing the average American's knees knocked in the back seats? Not at all. Based on knowledge and belief, we would say they are all terribly nice fellows who lack the resources to produce many large cars and have therefore gravitated to a business plan calling for everybody to ride around in pre-shrunk runabouts while the executives breathe heavily about virtue. But about the new reason for hope. Friends, a stunning development has taken place in the courts -- specifically, in the District of Columbia federal Court of Appeals. A few months ago, the court was wrestling with some big arguments about the 1984 NHTSA ruling, which allowed Ford and GM to stay with some fairly relaxed fuel-economy standards. (The ruling was actually about standards for light trucks rather than cars, but the court's logic clearly applies to both.) In electing to let the companies stick with a standard of only 19.5 miles per gallon, the agency indicated it was in part responding to consumer demand -- that is, increased demand for larger trucks. The possibility that ordinary consumers would get in on the act proved offensive to the Naderites, who to this day are identified in the media as ''consumer advocates.'' So sure enough, the agency's decision was challenged by Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety. In considering the challenge, the D.C. Circuit Court found itself split. On one side was Right-Winger Nino Scalia (now in the process of moving over to the Supreme Court). Scalia's view was that the Naderites lacked the ''standing'' to bring such a suit. You cannot sue to overturn an administrative decision, he ruled, unless you are being directly injured by it. In other words, get lost. That sounds reasonable, and yet there is also much to be said for the opposing view. This view, which proved to be in the majority, held that the Naderites did so have standing and that the court would therefore hear their case and rule on it. The ruling, composed by Judge Harry T. Edwards, will be counted a definite plus by anyone who remembers what an Eldorado looked like in the old days. Blockbusting bottom line: NHTSA can take consumer demand into account in setting the standards. Imagine that. The people who go around buying cars will be allowed to influence the kind of cars being made. No matter what virtuous people say.