Your premise is based upon your assertion that a government regulation is a business opportunity. That's the kind of economic thinking that went into failed business and empires worldwide.
Historically that story is inaccurate, btw. The Arab-Israeli conflict on 1967 lead to ridiculous U.S. policy on oil, namely price caps by Nixon that lead to shortages of oil. Who would have thought that price controls lead to shortages?
In the 60s and 70s cars did not run like crap; it was called the musclecar era for a reason.
Here's the problem. This regulation has not undergone any cost/benefit evaluation. Statistically speaking, motorcycles contribute little to pollution problems nationwide. This is based upon emission indicies and population and miles ridden of motorycles. In effect, this is regulation for the sake of regulating. Governments being arbitrary and stupid is why this country rebelled from England was founded in the first place.
As for people being mad at SUV drivers, think about two things: The first is that three of the best selling vehicles in 2001 are pickup trucks, two holding the top two honors for a total of 2,000,000 vehicles. Pickup trucks make up 37% of the market, a majority being considered large (66%). By way of comparison, large SUVs only make up 8% of the total truck market. If you want to reduce pollution consider regulating all trucks, not just SUVs. The second is that by imposing standards on SUVs because you don't like them and don't want to see them on the road will not be the result of the regulations. Automobiles with more stringent regulations have been getting bigger, not smaller.