Still even if your cropping 2 perf to 16:9, its still a 1.6X larger negative area then a 16:9 frame on super 16. So that would be a notable bump in quality. During the BBC's HD super 16 ban period - 2 perf 35mm cropped to 16:9 was considered good enough for HD.
So if the cost of 2-perf works out as only marginally more expensive then super16 and less then 3 perf its possibly worthwhile, if 3 perf is unaffordable. The question of if the extra quality is worth the bump in cost would have to be decided with testing etc... but it is something you could consider - 16:9 2 perf isn't a completely stupid idea. You also get the benefit of 20min loads which you can't with super 16. Some times 35mm short ends are better priced then 16mm - so you might be able to shoot 2 perf cheaper then 16mm and benefit from a notable bump in quality... win win
Of course a 2.40:1 - 2 perf 2.40:1 image is 3X larger then a 2.40:1 super 16 extraction so in that case 2 perf is a lot better. So for scope 2 perf is going to look vastly better then super 16.