This is correct only to the extent where the engine choice significantly affects your CG.
If I know I will be nose heavy, I will prefer the lighter option and forego all the extra stuff for a well balanced plane without extra lead in the tail.
I am kind of surprised by this extra 1/2 to 1 HP provided by the 3W information. In the 50cc category, the DA seemed to pull as good or better than similar displacement 3Ws (I guess that would be the 55cc) using 23x8 or 24x8 with pipe.
I am still happy to sacrifice the extra ball bearing, beefier mounting, extra 1/2HP and such for a lighter wing loading.
On the EF Yak 88', I have never needed more than the 5HP provided by the DA. I have seen many people using that engine, the DL50 or the Brillelli 366. Have not seen one mounted with a 3W. I would be interested in the performance and weight they get - what prop is used, what rpm they get, etc.
On the 35% Extra (AW or similar at 26lbs.), I have never needed more than a DA-100 to get unlimited vertical. I initially mounted a BME 110 but opted against for balance reasons and the possible lack of support...
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
"you get much more for the money for these former brands - hands down. "
This doesn't sound like just a matter of taste, if that is what you meant.
Of course, more crank counter balance, extra bearings, beefier mounting hard points and such, will come at a cost of some weight but we are talking ounces here not pounds, and what you get in return is 1/2 to 1 full HP more of power (in spite of rear induction vs. side) to more than offset those ounces. If you strip away all the hype, and just look at the facts, 3W is among the best options out there at any price.
Weight is given way too much press. Power makes weight disappear. Haven't you ever wondered what these engine designers are sacrificing to get their engines lighter and lighter? Compare 3W to the other ones mentioned and you will see.