agentmulder wrote:

I think that is wishful thinking...

True for many parts, but some critical ones will have mechanical and thermal characteristics built in during the manufacturing steps that we aren't privy to (casting/forging, NC turning/mill etc.), I could imagine fitting a part, driving for some distance, smile on face just before it crumbles to pieces and then destroys parts B & C in the vicinity.

In fact, as clever as you can get in a foundry, many parts are designed around the manufacturing process involved.

Always made me cringe watching engineering students mimicking cast/forge design artefacts when designing in CAD for 3D printed parts. They completely missed the point that they are relatively free to design more optimally with the 3D printer (ignoring for the moment the new but different constraints that a 3D printer introduces...).



Maybe in 15~20 years there will be a nice database/consensus on how to reverse manufacture parts for vehicles, but it will be niche and for enthusiasts, most collective design thinking will have moved on to electric.

One man's opinion... happy to be proved wrong

I'm of the same opinion. I know 3D printing is clever but casting and forging, heat treatments in their many forms, and probably lots of other processes that I don't know about since I studied it 30 years ago all have a critical effect on the behaviour and mechanical characteristics of materials. In fact, IIRC, heat treatments actually change the molecular structure of the material that's been treated, and until this is possible to achieve I can't see all engine components being as simple as a 3d print to replicate.

I think i'll stick with building up my spares rather than relying on the advances of technology. I am of the generation that was told that electricity from nuclear generation would be given away as it would be so cheap to produce, and we all know how true that turned out to be