My news sources seem to be full of good news and indications that common sense is being considered once again, if not prevailing consistently.

Of course my own common sense is now in question as I’ve just dinged my credit card big-time on gasoline tabs rocketing around Germany where diesels rule.  Yeah, a turbo diesel car would have been the smart thing, but given the option of a 204 hp diesel or a 572 hp station wagon, common sense takes a vacation. At least all of that horsepower was practical in keeping up with German timing precision, as it allowed a three-stop, 75-mile round trip from the center of one small village to another and back in 46 minutes.

The first good news is that Dodge has released the pricing info on the new Ram half-ton and it’s less expensive than the old one. A tempered showroom climate, smart design and manufacturing, fewer permutations and perhaps some Nardelli-and-company cost-cutting probably helped, but the new model’s standard stability control and automatic should have made it $1500 more than the old one, not less.

Time will tell if this pricing strategy extends to the new heavy-duty but we’ll keep our collective fingers crossed.

Also in my good news file is an Internal Revenue Service decision.

Didn’t see that one coming did ya?

The Infernal Revenue Service has declared that the Volkswagen’s new 40-mpg Jetta TDI is eligible for a federal tax credit similar to those offered for hybrid buyers. Details are numerous and it may apply to only the first 60,000 buyers, but you could get a tax credit of $1300 the year you buy one. Preliminary 2009 Jetta pricing puts the TDI model just about $2000 more than a similarly-equipped gasoline engine so your “diesel net” is just $700 for improving EPA figures by 10 mpg.

Imagine the tax break if the EPA got better numbers. Their diesel numbers are usually pessimistic and I got measurably better than 30/41 driving a Jetta TDI. EPA seemed to admit they were aware of the problem in a December, 2006, publication suggesting that diesels deliver 18% better than their label mileage and everything else, including hybrids, delivered less than label mileage.

Go back to that German hot rod for a second. Its rated average consumption is 14.0 liters/100 kilometers, and after 1770 kilometers at speeds between traffic jams and 280 kph, variable weather and changing loads, my average consumption was exactly 14.0 liters/100 kilometers. Can you imagine rating your car on how many gallons and ounces it will take to cover 100 miles…and then getting it spot on?

Me neither. But here are a few ideas for fuel economy tests and what to do with them. First, have an independent agency or university (AMCI, SAE, MIT, CalTech, etc.) take over the testing; more than 30 years on the EPA still hasn’t got it. Everything else depends on getting an accurate measure to begin with.

Second, measure and present it as volume required to cover set distance—any volume (gallons, ounces, liters, but no weights) and any distance (1 mile, 50 miles, 100 kilometers, 100 miles, etc.). Third, test and present pickup trucks (anything with a bed—normally covered or otherwise), at a 50/50 mix of GVWR and GCWR but never unloaded, and ensure at least 15 seconds of continuous full-throttle operation in the test; any penalties incurred should be based on what the vehicle is built to do/carry/pull, not what it manages loafing along in overdrive empty. Fourth, expand fuel economy ratings up to at least 12,000 GVW and 26,000 GCW. Fifth, across all segments, apply gas-guzzler taxes proportionally to those vehicles that use more than the segment average and tax credits proportionally to those vehicles that use less fuel than the average.

How would you improve fuel economy testing and associated costs?