Not just the engine. If I were to start my build today, in todays dollars, for the airframe kits, prop, engine, and avionics I have, I'd be sitting at about $175,000. By the time I add interior and paint I'll end up insuring it for a bit over $200,000 because thats what it would cost to replace it. For some of us, it's pretty hard to justify writing that kind of check for a two seat airplane, no matter how much total performance it offers up.
As far as mediocre performance, if you measure by $ per knot or brisk roll rate then yeah, Vans hands down, but if you measure by the ability to put 4 people and full fuel in and go somewhere, or value not having to get in like you're lowering yourself into a bathtub, or being able to tie it down without worrying about the wind smacking a hole in the rudder, then not so much.
All airplanes are a trade off. The Vans line does a lot of stuff really, really well, but they aren't a perfect airplane by any means. No airplane is. Part of what they have historically offered has been economical performance at the expense of other stuff, some of which I just mentioned.
Take away that, and yeah, If we are talking purely dollars here I'd probably just keep renting a 182. Maybe buy an old cub to restore just for fun.
I get that's not an opinion that everybody has, and that's fine too.[/QUOTE
Lowering yourself into a bathtub. Totally agree on that. One of the main factors why I gave up my 7A.