Our success with this spec engine has succeeded our own expectations for performance and longevity. The champion of the Pro Cup Series ran one of these engines more than 5,500 laps without any major maintenance or expense. One of the reasons we were able to do this was by using hydraulic roller lifters. In the recent past, you would never consider hydraulic lifters because you couldn't get more than 5,000 to 6,000 rpm out of them, but now that's not the case. By using high-quality hydraulic roller lifters you can get to very racy rpm levels, and best of all, the hydraulic lifters act as shock absorbers to protect the valvetrain. We've worked really closely with Crane Cams to develop a camshaft and lifter package that makes really good power while also being really easy on the valves and springs. This way you have a method to make good power without abusing your engine, but the hydraulic lifters still provide a reasonable method of limiting the rpm levels.

Plus, teching for hydraulic lifters is relatively easy. All you have to do is pull the valve covers and check to see that there is no lash between the rocker tip and the valve. Hydraulic lifters should be set with no lash, but solid lifters will require a few thousandths of an inch of lash. If anyone tries to cheat and run solid lifters with no lash the engine won't be very competitive.

I don't mean to imply that I have all the answers but there are sure more logical ways to keep speeds under control and make for better racing than slapping restrictors on everything. Just cutting power to the engines isn't all that's required. With lower power numbers, if drivers can simply flat-foot it around the racetrack, the racing won't be improved. Changes to the chassis will also be necessary. Whether it is less aerodynamic downforce, harder tires or something else entirely remains to be seen. But we must try something.

And while we are talking about issues in racing that we should rethink, I can't stop without saying something about carburetors. Specifically the 390-cfm carburetors that have been a popular way for sanctioning bodies to limit horsepower. I truly can't understand why you would have a rule that requires a small carburetor to limit power but then allow racers to modify those carburetors to increase the horsepower.

Modifying a carburetor is a great way to spend a lot of money for sometimes a very substantial gain. In some racing series I've seen teams racing 390 carburetors that cost approximately $3,000 after they've been modified. But once they've had all that work done, the carbs are very fragile and sensitive, and most teams require multiple carburetors.

Why not just use a 600-cfm carb and require it to be stock? The carburetor costs only around $700 and will produce the same horsepower as the highly modified 390.

But if high-end, unlimited-technology race engines are harmful to the sport, on the other end of the spectrum I firmly believe that crate engines haven't done racing any favors, either.

I just never have seen the logic behind crate engines.

Has short-track racing gotten better since crate motors have been shoved down our throats? As I have said before, I think there is a place for crate motors in oval-track racing. That's entry-level classes, higher level classes aren't well served by the momentum racing created by the low horsepower crates. I'm sure there are some racers, tracks and even racing series that have survived because they were able to cut their engine costs by going to crates, but I don't think there are many.

No matter what anyone tells you, cheating has been rampant since these engines came along. This, I must add, does not come without some expense. From what I understand, most places don't even check for seals anymore. I was recently told by one short track car builder, "Don't bother coming to a race with a stock crate motor." If cheating is that prevalent, then why even bother?

Did I ever cheat up a crate engine? Yes, I've made it public knowledge that I have. The first one I saw we improved it 35 horsepower and never got caught. We did this just to prove that we could. But since then it has gotten even more blatant. There is one manufacturer making no secret about its available upgrade for a crate motor. It brings the cost up to $18,000, nearly what a real race engine would cost.

Another issue I have with crate motors is their limited rpm range. Race engines should be able to turn more than 6,300 to 6,800 rpm. Who wants to hear a field of race cars all on the rev limiter by the time they hit the flagstand? More horsepower and more rpm most definitely makes for a better race for both drivers and spectators. Racing should be about learning throttle control, acceleration and deceleration and being able to work through traffic—not just flat-footing it all the way around the track like a box-stock go kart.

Before I close, let me explain that we all owe sanctioning bodies, tracks and racing series a big thanks. Without them taking the risks they have during these tough economic times, we probably wouldn't be able to continue to do business as we have previously. We at Automotive Specialists are very appreciative for this.

Why am I spending my time and gambling on offending those that make my way of living possible? Simple: I want racing to regain the excitement, the car counts and the full grandstands that we were so fortunate to enjoy in the past. I think that keeping the cost and speeds at a manageable level are a step in the right direction, but we must also make the racing exciting and enjoyable for both teams and fans.

I welcome discussion and debates on my feelings any time.