The main issue with scanning, in my humble opinion, is detail vs. grain. Modern scanners and good software (like vuescan, which is free) can handle the Dmax/min range of E6 films quite well, so that's [almost] a nonissue.
I prefer scanning slide. I maintain that I get more detail per grain.
This is not to knock the new 160 films, they are super, and of course offer more dynamic range, but... until you shoot quite large formats you will see the grain playing a role. Then it's just a personal decision whether you like that or not.
You
can definitely get spectacular results from the 160 films but, in my opinion, that is at larger formats that are scanned more conservatively than you would scan E6. I allege that the granularity of E6 films only turns on in the scan when you are really scanning to full resolution. [I leave it open to interpretation what "full resolution" means
] I have no explanation for this but it might be in that article that was recently linked here.
Just my opinion. Incidentally, I think if you are going to scan then you have to think upfront about how you will do that and whether might amend your exposure accordingly. For velvia 100, for example, I go ahead and expose normally if I am willing to drum scan the frame, but overexpose it ever so slightly or go to 100F or astia if I plan to flatbed scan it.
Did you think about cross processing?