HI,
I don't know if you found out what you needed to, but feel free to contact me if not - more so because some have put comments on here which are old stereo typed beliefs, at least 20 years out of date, oh, and clearly incorrect in some cases!!
As an aircraft to own, as opposed to admire, personally I prefer the Lycoming powered version - smooth, easy to maintain, and reasonably inexpensive. Despite a comment earlier on they are not particularly difficult to get parts for (there's loads around), but yes, probably harder than a properly current engine. About the same as running an 850 mini, MGB or old Landrover - don't expect to go to the garage round the corner, but its really not difficult. However, if I terminally 'break' the engine (and I have a spare) I know I can fit any one of several more modern Lycomings that are already approved.
I have a Mk5 alpha which someone did mention, it is a fantastic two/three/four seater - it can take 220Lbs on the rear seat which can be 'one of me', or two smaller people, and even max'd out on weight it performs very well and above all, doesn't bite back. 125/130Hp in a relatively light aircraft is plenty good enough for me, MT weight is 1221 and MAW is 1945 which leave a reasonable (for its type) 724lb for people, fuel and stuff. I also know the type can be loaded way beyond that without ill effect - just don't ask how I know!!
I get a real 5.5g/h or less, that's fully rich at 97mph+ at 2200/2250rpm and with a belly tank my bladder can't last the 5hrs that gives! Short field is great, I'm not brave but have used 350m strips several times and generally use around a 1/3rd of my 800m runway so in and out of 400m and hardly using the brakes is realistic. Landing, just the same as a cub or any 'bungie' aircraft - decend to terra firma too quickly and the bungies will make you fly again, stick to the numbers and minimise excess energy and all is fine. I have flown a fair number of types, and correct, the Auster hasn't got the feel of a Condor, or the space of a C172, a Luscombe is nicer to fly in pure flying terms, and I loved my old Aeronca, but I like to fly for fun, have a safe aircraft when family are with me, and one that is generally admired at flyins as a vintage aircraft. I have had a couple of engine failures on take off and the characteristics together with a 28mph stall is why I can still write this!
All in all, I haven't seen much that can compete in flying/purchase cost terms over the years, and that goes for running costs as well - in my experience they do not cost much to run. Check in with the Auster club to confirm, but nowadays there are a lot in the air and most are pretty nice aircraft.
My aircraft is not immaculate, but its pretty OK overall but above all is mechanically excellent which is where my priorities lie!
Shout if you want any more info or to take a look etc?
Good luck,
Tim