It didn't mention one of the major reasons inline 6 engines are uncommon. Having a longitudinal inline 6 reduces the amount of space for a crumple zone, and making an inline 6 narrow enough to be used transversly is also a challenge. Take a look at any I-6 Volvo with a transverse engine.
I too hate the elimination of inline 6 engines. It was one of 2 things I didn't like about the 2008-up Nissan GT-R.
A V6 has never been anything better than a packaging solution. A front wheel drive car is only so wide and the fore and aft space only so much if you want to focus on passenger space. The fact that a V6 works at all is a tribute to engineering excellence from motor mounts to balance shafts and expensive crankshafts with lots of computer time, too.
The V6 is just for packaging and cost, mostly for FWD cars. I6 is superior as is the RWD layout.
I still think its a crying shame Mercedes ditched their wonderful line of six cylinders for V engines back in the late 90's when they owned Chrysler. The M104 is still a wonderful engine.
My longest lasting engine was my 1966 Chevy 230 I-6 which went well over 500k without a rebuild. 2bbl carb 3 speed on the tree.
It was indestructible.
But today my Toyota 3.5L 2GR-FE is the way to go. I am on #3 and think it is by far the best V-6 on the road.
TV + short edit time = two posts. Nice article and sound reasoning. Seems the only reason not to have an inline 6 is space and use across.platforms. Same reason the straight-8 engines went away in.favor of the V8.