## 4 Discussion  
The costs associated with remanufacturing through additive manufacturing and reverse engineering compared to manufacturing new hydraulic drive system components vary based on diverse factors. This comparison involves material expenses, labor costs, equipment investments, design and engineering outlays, quality control needs, and sustainability considerations. Remanufacturing entails material costs primarily linked to additive manufacturing materials, while new manufacturing uses raw materials that might be pricier. Labor expenses involve skilled workers for scanning, 3D printing, and quality control in remanufacturing, versus the need for labor in traditional manufacturing processes. Equipment costs for both approaches are substantial, with remanufacturing requiring investments in 3D scanning and additive manufacturing machines. Design and engineering costs encompass reverse engineering and adapted designs for remanufacturing compared to the design expenses of new manufacturing. Quality control is vital in both processes but follows varied protocols. Remanufacturing is often viewed as more sustainable, considering its reduction in waste and energy usage compared to new manufacturing. However, higher initial investment costs for equipment and skilled labor might be incurred. Ultimately, the cost-effectiveness of remanufacturing versus new manufacturing hinges on factors like component complexity, production scale, materials used, and technologies employed. Other influential factors could include sustainability goals, component availability, and lead times beyond the sole consideration of cost. To mitigate the high concentration of local (micro) deformation and distortions in parts manufactured using the MSLA additive manufacturing technique, various strategies can be implemented. Optimizing print settings, adjusting exposure time, layer height, and curing settings, tailored to the specific part's requirements, can mitigate distortion. Employing suitable support structures can offer stability, significantly reducing deformation risks, especially in complex parts. Selecting resins with lower shrinkage rates and low viscosity contributes to less distortion. Maintaining a controlled printing environment prevents extreme temperature variations that can cause warping. Post-curing techniques and calibration procedures further rectify distortions. Implementing these strategies while fine-tuning printing parameters allows for meticulous adjustments to achieve the desired accuracy and quality in the final printed components. The environmental impact and carbon footprint reduction achieved through remanufacturing via additive manufacturing and reverse engineering compared to traditional methods are considerable. The practice significantly reduces material consumption by reusing non-defective components and producing only the necessary parts, curbing the energy-intensive processes associated with new material extraction. Remanufacturing, particularly through additive manufacturing, reduces waste generation by using only the required materials, lessens energy consumption in the layer-by-layer manufacturing process, and diminishes transportation emissions by producing parts locally. These practices adhere to circular economy principles, extending component lifecycles and diverting parts from landfills. While additive manufacturing and reverse engineering have energy requirements, their impact is significantly offset by material savings, waste reduction, and the utilization of recyclable materials, aligning with sustainability goals and contributing to a more environmentally friendly manufacturing approach. While plastic materials are used in this research due to their versatility and availability, it is evident that metallic alloys are preferred for remanufacturing hydraulic drive system components, primarily due to their superior mechanical properties.