Not many years ago, I was sitting at a bar with Brock Yates near his Thousand Islands home. We were trying to conjure 10Best topics. I said, “How about the 10 best C/D editors who have apparently become insane?”

 

“Oh, puh-leese,” Brock said. “Absurd.” “Why?” I asked. “Because we’d never get the list down to 10 names.” After reading this column, you may want to add me to the list. I’m okay with that. As we wrote last month, the EPA recently said that, in 2018, it would begin enforcing a scary mandate—that emissions equipment on streetlegal cars must remain intact forever, even if the car is used solely on racetracks. Then, in mid-April, the agency backed off, saying that the ban is aimed only at companies selling parts that disable emissions controls, and race cars could continue to be modified in any manner desired. But what I’m asking is, “Why back down?” In this matter, I agree with the EPA’s original mandate. For starters, obtaining monstrous power no longer demands that the engine operate as dirty as a dorm shower. Fiat Chrysler proved that with the 707-hp Hellcats. And in the past, I’ve driven many hot laps around Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca in Ford Mustang Boss 302s and Subaru WRX STIs, emissions equipment unmolested. Both were faster and more reliable than a TRD-prepped Toyota MR2 Turbo that I raced there in 1992. Also more fun. In club racing—every category—why shouldn’t cars run clean? Maybe not as clean as street cars, but might we set some modest level of emissions cleanliness that the sanctioning bodies’ scrutineers could randomly verify via sniffer wands? Critics say, “This will destroy grassroots racing, notably LeMons.” Really? In 2006, C/D raced an emissions-legal Oldsmobile Aurora in a LeMons race, and in 2007, a Mazda RX-7. Both were more fun than hamsters on a hover board. Critics further say, “This won’t put a dent in cleaning the air.” Are you sure? NASCAR alone burns roughly 6000 gallons of fuel per weekend, and it sanctions more than 1500 races at 100 tracks. And consider the sports-car fields at Le Mans, Sebring, and Daytona, which log moonshot mileage. So, am I wishing this would apply to pro racers, too? Yes, I am. How will slightly more modern stock-car engines ruin the sport? Or think about Porsche and Toyota, which recently spent an avalanche of cash to develop one-off V-4s for their 200-mph prototype hybrids. You think going one step further to make those engines clean would bankrupt them? My plan is flawed. What to do about exhausts, for instance? Well, “cat-back” systems have been used for years, and SEMA told me, “Not all exhaust modifications are illegal, since a lot of products from our industry are CARB certified.” Also, race engines are usually subjected to only one dirty cold start per day. Okay, maybe we’ll lose some of the coveted open-exhaust sound. On the other hand, no one bitched about the Audi prototype diesels’ soft lilt. The one category I can’t figure out is pro drag racing, where raw nitro flaming out of Top Fuel headers is critical to the show. At least those cars race only 1000 feet at a time—there’s no “24 Hours of Pomona.” If this makes racing more expensive, well, racing has become more expensive every year of my life. And couldn’t it make amateur racing less expensive, if hobbyists weren’t weekly ponying up for the latest engine upgrades? One truism about racers is that if they don’t spend money on one component, they’ll spend it on another. That’s why I question the aftermarketers’ claims that green racing engines will diminish their $36 billion in annual retail sales. I don’t see it. Racers are wily. Left to their own devices, they’ll create their own go-fast parts. Right now, maybe we’re in an era where more horsepower isn’t what we need. Let’s make cars quicker via trick shocks, suspension pieces, reduced friction, new rubber compounds, and aero aids. And who better to sell that stuff than SEMA? Once again, SEMA emphasized to me, “We have spent millions on developing test procedures and equipment . . . to CARB-certify parts for street use.” Which tells me it’s already sensitive to a 100-percent emissions- legal future. There will come a day when stamp collectors and birders say: “Hey, my hobby i clean. How come all these weekend warriors get to violate federal law and crud up the atmosphere?” It’s a fair question. So why don’t we—us—ease into this, starting in 2018? Let’s do it voluntarily, before it’s forced on us. Because it will be forced on us, especially in an era of squeaky-clean cars, when civilians begin equating our Hellcats with puppy-murdering Scud missiles. Are we too dumb to do this? Nope. Is it an inconvenience? Yep. But getting a grip on greenhouse gases will eventually inconvenience everyone. Say hello to change. One more thing. Brock, if you’re reading this, it’s just a big joke. Ha-ha. I’m a joker.