This is an analogy based on the "street race scene" from American culture that peaked in a span about from the 1950's through the 1970's. It refers to using the actual results of a race to judge the "better engine" instead of merely talking about the alleged elegance and/or "nice theory" of your engine design. It's a variation of "show instead of tell".
Of course, it might be the case that the Car and the Engine are very good... but the the driver is not...
MythBusters? often build a robot or wire-track to control repeated experiments to remove the variability of humans. As far as the "street", the builder either drives their own car or get a buddy to do it. If they F it up, it's their own problem: it's their job to package and present their evidence properly. Ideally it would be nice to try multiple drivers to remove driver-specific variability, but that's not the way they did it back then. It was essentially a mating dance, not a scientific experiment. Smarter drivers practice with a buddy first, unless that means getting busted.
Misread as RaceTheDamnedCat and some confusion.
Lisp programmer by chance?
See Also: IfFooIsSoGreatHowComeYouAreNotRichCategoryEvidence