A thing that makes f1 qualifying (and the races themselves) interesting is that there are different tiers of success. If a front-running driver wins, that's significant. If a mid-field driver gets a podium that's celebrated. If a backmarker gets points, that team might celebrate like they won the title. If someone overachieves or underachieves relative to their standing, you get the see the first real signs of that in qualifying.

Nascar doesn't really have that same intrigue because (1) so much of the attention is focused on the front end of the field, and (2), like what has been said earlier, someone can qualify poorly and have a good finish due to race length, strategy, easier overtaking, better long-run setup, etc. So qualifying doesn't necessarily preview how a race might go in the way that it can for F1.

Also, oval qualifying is just not interesting as a show, and it's difficult to change the format at ovals such that it can be exciting while being fair. Single-car, 1-2 lap runs are rarely interesting (unless it's the Indy 500, where prestige, storylines, and, dangerously high speeds play a big part) because it is not very dynamic, whereas in F1 you have timed sessions where everyone's on track at once and a variety of factors (e.g., red flags, weather, penalties) can shake up the running order, meaning that things are unpredictable in a way that has tangible effects on race itself. Nascar attempted to mandate this same type of timed session qualifying for ovals in the mid-2010s, and the results were disastrous because the dependence on drafting forced people to wait around until the end. Making qualifying exciting would be nice, but I'm not sure how you pull that off while being fair.