Other engines could be similarly rated for jinutes of runtime by default for maximum performance. SpaceX aldo repeatedly ststed Merlin and Raptor were designed for cheap and fregvent reuse.
A cheap rocket engine needs a cheap development process, which means you want your test articles to last a long time. Far from being an obstacle to cheapness, reusability is a requirement for an affordable engine development program.
Let's go way back to Usenet and listen to Henry Spencer on this subject.
https://yarchive.net/space/rocket/rl10.html
"To reiterate my original point: almost any regeneratively-cooled liquid rocket engine is reusable, even if it was built for expendable vehicles. The design requirement for the F-1 was 20 starts and 2250s of firing; as part of the test program, six of them accumulated over 5000s each."
What makes hydrogen engines more expensive is the low density of LH2, which greatly increases the pumping power needed to bring the propellant up to pressure for injection into the thrust chamber.
The Merlin engines on the Falcon 9 are reusable (and on the first stage, they are reused). They are reported to cost SpaceX just $400K per engine to manufacture.