Straight sixes are shit.

They don't fit transversely.

They require a ridiculous amount of engine bay.

They require overbuilt crankshafts.

And yes. People like slant sixes, too. They're insane. They don't like the slant 6 because it puts out power, they like it because they had a '77 Valiant that lasted almost as long as their sister's '77 Civic except since it was American it was obviously superior.

You can shave 180lbs off the front end of a 280Z by putting in a 350V8. Think about that: 2.8L of SOHC inline 6 (with an aluminum head!) weighs more than 5.7L of all-iron V8.

Here's the thing: the hot rod community is full of douchebags and morons. They're the same ones who used to argue that all American 4x4s were superior because they had live axles and leaf springs. Why? Because they were American, therefore live axles and leaf springs must be superior by definition. Meanwhile Subaru would kick your ass on the trail and you were in a constant state of being embarassed by 2wd baja bugs.

So of course the slant 6 is brilliant. Why? Because Lee Iacocca is brilliant, therefore everything he touches is brilliant and if you disagree, you're a traitor. It has fuckall to do with the assets of the motor itself.

This is a Chrysler Slant 6 in situ. it displaces 2.8L.

Here's the same displacement engine, same era, in a ford, in iron, in a V-6, in a PINTO FFS, making more power.

Here's a Jaguar 12-cylinder, same era, taking up the same amount of space, weighing about the same, making so much more power that it isn't even worth discussing.

Worthy of note: the '94 Cherokee inline 6 b_b is waxing eloquent about is the same motor Jaguar abandoned back in the '70s.

If you've got a large boat, and you need to be able to work on the engine while at sea, an inline 6 is fine. if, on the other hand, you're attempting to engineer a motor vehicle with minimal moment of inertia, the lowest hood possible and the most compact arrangement you can come up with, the only thing worse than an inline 6 is an inline 8.