Is the "new" method name reserved?

Coming from this helpful question/answer: Constructor chaining in PowerShell - call other constructors in the same class.
To be consistent with the way you call a constructor (e.g. [car]::new()) and because "the hidden keyword" doesn't completely hide the method anyways, I am considering to use the method name new() (rather than init() for this constructor "helper" method in my classes. e.g.:

hidden new([string]$make) { $this.new($make, $null) }

It appears to work fine but somehow I fear that there might be a catch by doing so.

Is there any reason I should avoid the name "new" for a PowerShell class method?

Is there any reason I should avoid the name new for a PowerShell Class method?

From a strictly technical consideration and leaving aside personal preference / opinion, as long as the method is an instance method, then using new as its name shouldn't be a problem.

As noted in comments, there would be a problem if the method was a static one as you would be conflicting with the new intrinsic member.

The first problem would be the need to use reflection to invoke your method in the .ctor:

class Test {
    [string] $MyParam

    Test() {
        [Test].GetMethod('new').Invoke($null, $this)
    }

    Test([string] $myParam) {
        $this.MyParam = $myParam
    }

    hidden static new([Test] $instance) {
        $instance.MyParam = 'default value'
    }
}

[Test]::new()

# MyParam
# -------
# default value

[Test]::new('other value')

# MyParam
# -------
# other value

The second problem would be that the overload definitions would be all messed up as they would be showing your method overloads instead of the actual constructor overloads:

[Test]::new

# OverloadDefinitions
# -------------------
# public static void new(Test instance);

The expected here would be (same definitions as if you were doing [Test].GetConstructors()):

[Test]::new

# OverloadDefinitions
# -------------------
# public Test();
# public Test(string myParam);