I spent 10 years as the lead A&P at a CRS that included both engine and prop overhaul shops. I installed a lot of freshly overhauled engines and usually "test" flew the airplanes afterward. The owners almost always appreciated having someone else put the first couple of hours on a new engine even if they were billed for the gas. During that time, I got opportunities to fly many different aircraft, including a full range of Cessna 182, 182RG, TR182, and 210 (including T210 and P210) series aircraft.
The 182 FG Skylane is one of the best all-around airplanes ever built in my opinion. I also generally prefer Lycoming gray engines to TCM gold ones, but the O-540 on the 182RG is not one of my favorites. Aside from the dual mag, it also has an HA-6 side draft carb which I am not fond of. The turbo version is even worse. The stupid throttle mechanism that controls the turbo wastegate is one of the biggest clusterF&@$! that I have ever seen. When you push the throttle control into the panel, it hits the maximum wide open throttle plate (butterfly) in the carb itself at only half travel. All of the rest of the throttle travel is used to actuate the turbo wastegate via a convoluted cam plate and a pull cable. Rigging it is a nightmare. It violates the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) and all for only 235 horsepower (turbo normalized, not boosted!)
On the other hand, I've flown a full range of Cessna 210s from an IO-470 powered 210A with struts up to a P210. I was not impressed with the 210A at all, the P210 flew like a living room - VERY (almost too) stable and it seemed like it took minutes for it to respond to aileron imputs and roll! It was also very heavy and didn't feel anything at all like any other 210. Some of the most fun I've ever had was in the T210, but probably the absolute most fun I have ever had was in a 1976 210L with a STOL kit, an IO-550 conversion with a Scimitar prop, and a radar pod under the right wing. That darn thing would climb like a homesick angel even though according to the airspeed indicator, it shouldn't have been flying at all.
As far as the n/a 210 models are concerned, I always preferred the 210L or later because up through the 210K model, they had engine-driven hydraulic pumps that ran all the time. I liked the electro-hydraulic powerpacks better because they shut off when not in use. It's easy to tell the difference on the ground; the full-time engine-driven hydraulic pump models cycle the aux NLG doors closed after the gear is extended, but the electro-hydraulic powerpack models do not - the aux NLG doors are closed only when the NLG itself retracts and pulls the doors closed with it.
One other piece of "wisdom" once shared with me by one of the first guys I ever flew with - he had a Cessna 177 Cardinal (N888VM) that he bought from his brother when the brother "upgraded" to a 177RG. He told me that the 177RG was a 15% increase in cost for a 10% increase in performance. In other words, bigger and/or more complex is not necessarily "better."
The bottom line is that any airplane is a compromise - you really have to find something that suits your typical mission (and you had better know just what exactly your typical mission will be before you buy the airplane!)
My last two cents, in contrast to someone else's opinion here, my 1/4 inch drive ratchet was the one tool that I used more than any other. Very little on a GA airplane requires more torque than that and space and access are frequently an issue. Sometimes, I wondered why I had 3/8 inch drive tools at all. I'm not saying that I'm more "right" or that he's necessarily "wrong" - just that experiences and opinions vary.
If she'd had the range to ferry there I'd still own it.
