Ah yes, the argument for rear radiator(s) on a rear engined car, such as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0koda_1000_MB

James
Ottawa, ON

> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:09:29 -1000
> From: scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM
> Subject: Re: [WetWesties] The Vanagon cooling system.. it's              counterintuitive.. (long post)
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> 
> it's a consequence of the vehicle design ..
> I DO appreciate that the Vanagon is the last version of the original
> concept ..
> oppossed 4 cylinder aluminum rear mounted engine ..
> that starts with the very very first VW Buses ...1954 or about there ..
> and they evolved the design through 3 basic versions ( Spitty, Bay Bus,
> and Vanagon ) .
> I like that.
> 
> rear mounted radiator..or even twin rear mounted small radiators ...not
> practical generally .
> Though ...that would keep the major cooling system parts in one area..
> and help the weight distribution ..which oddly, on a 2WD Vanagon is
> about 55 % of the weight is on the front axle.
> 
> and generally ...a front-mounted radiator is the most easily-successful
> arrangement, high air pressure there, etc.
> 
> And sure ...there are scads of cooling system parts ..one of the Charms
> of water-cooled Vanagons let's say.
> On 9/6/2015 12:17 PM, PSD wrote:
> > Yeah, not counter intuitive just over-complicated.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of SDF ( aka ;jim lahey' - Scott )
> > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 4:01 PM
> > To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> > Subject: Re: [WetWesties] The Vanagon cooling system.. it's counterintuitive.. (long post)
> >
> > I wouldn't say it's counter-intuitive really ..
> >