So quite a bit to digest there Frank... I do have a question about one of your main points, though, regarding that of the radiator capacity.  I am certainly no automotive expert, but it seems that when looking at the capacity of the radiator core, you'd wan't to look more at the volume of liquid it is passing through it, rather than the overall size... I can't imagine a radiator the size of a vanagon's with coolant flowing through a single tube the size of a drinking straw would corroborate your conclusion of being overcooled.  Or more subtly, a radiator that was 671.34" deep by 1" high by 1" wide would not be a terribly effective cooling device either.
To add more factors into your equation, is the torturous air path through the vanagon's radiator taken into account?  Making a sharp 90 degree turn right after the radiator is not the best way to keep CFM up...
Just curious,
-Damon
 Frank Grunthaner wrote:Ok, so what is the capacity of the Vanagon radiator core. Answer (thank you,
archives), 23.250 (W) x 16.50 (H) x 1.75 (T) for 671.34 cubic inches. I
therefore have effectively twice the cooling capacity in the radiator than I
need. Overcooled says I. Good design says I. Of course, if its broken fix it,
but no need to improve the engineering. Along this line, I should point out
that the factory Ford Mustang with HiPo 302 cid V8 engine ships with 648
cubic inch radiator core and this calculation suggests that it needs 698
cubic inches. Good VW design. This discussion actually assumes Al core
radiators and Cu would be somewhat better.

'84 Westy

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!