[v12-engine] V12 6.0 bellhousing pattern

Does the 6.0 V12 with the GM 4L80E use a GM type bell
housing bolt pattern? I’m interested in a manual conversion
and was curious if I can use a GM bell housing.–
cheseroo
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

Does the 6.0 V12 with the GM 4L80E use a GM type bell
housing bolt pattern? I’m interested in a manual conversion
and was curious if I can use a GM bell housing.

Nope! Reportedly the bolt pattern changed from a Jaguar-unique
pattern on the 5.3 to a different Jaguar-unique pattern on the 6.0!
IOW, they not only made one of the stupidest decisions ever, they
made the same stupid decision TWICE.

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !On 4 Apr 2012 at 20:12, cheseroo wrote:

1 Like

In reply to a message from Kirbert sent Wed 4 Apr 2012:

Although tranny us a 4L80E the pattern is unique to the Jag V12 6
Ltr.–
The original message included these comments:

Does the 6.0 V12 with the GM 4L80E use a GM type bell
housing bolt pattern? I’m interested in a manual conversion


britirn
West Covina, California, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

In reply to a message from Kirbert sent Wed 4 Apr 2012:

Stupid from whose perspective?

AFAIK the Jag trannies and torque converters are uprated compared
to the run-of-the-mill GM stuff. If I was a seller of upmarket
engines it would be a smart move to stop people bolting detonating
TCs onto the back off my high-revving engine.

The fact that somebody 10, 20 or 30 years later couldn’t use a
junkyard GM transmission on the engine I designed and built, would
not even enter my deliberations, let alone qualify as a stupid move.

Pete–
The original message included these comments:

IOW, they not only made one of the stupidest decisions ever, they
made the same stupid decision TWICE.


1E75339 66 D, 1E33100 66 FHC, 1R7977 69 OTS, 1R9720 69OTS
Cambridge, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

In reply to a message from PeterCrespin sent Thu 5 Apr 2012:

Actually the Turbo 400 used behind the V112, was for the most part
the same as the big block Chev. The Chev made around 500 HP with
that trans behind it, so I would think the Jag would be just fine
with the same stuff.
The torque converter was a HI stall unit that, except for the extra
bolt lugs on it, was the same as the big block Chev 396/427/454,
425 and 450(really about 500) HP engines.
I don’t think I have ever heard of a Turbo 400 TC detonating. I am
sure there are extreems, but not normal stuff.–
The original message included these comments:

AFAIK the Jag trannies and torque converters are uprated compared
to the run-of-the-mill GM stuff. If I was a seller of upmarket


Dr. Chadbourn Bolles, JaguarXJ_S@Yahoo.com
Leesville, SC, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

In reply to a message from Dr. Chadbourn Bolles sent Thu 5 Apr 2012:

i’m with Chad on this one!

mine a 78 v12 , installed a, now common,GM 700R4, with simple
adaptor plate, works fine, been that way for 16yrs.

it was before Johns cars was doing them regularly, at least I
did not know about them!–
The original message included these comments:

Actually the Turbo 400 used behind the V112, was for the most part
the same as the big block Chev. The Chev made around 500 HP with
that trans behind it, so I would think the Jag would be just fine
with the same stuff.
Dr. Chadbourn Bolles, JaguarXJ_S@Yahoo.com


Ronbros
daytona fl. / Austin TX., United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

Pretty hard to break one…but it isn’t that hard to wear one out!

Cheers
Doug Dwyer
Longview Washington USA
1995 XJR

I don’t think I have ever heard of a Turbo 400 TC detonating. I am
sure there are extreems, but not normal stuff.

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !From: “Dr. Chadbourn Bolles” JaguarXJ_S@yahoo.com

In reply to a message from Kirbert sent Wed 4 Apr 2012:

I think you will find that the 4L80E ‘‘Jagaur’’ bolt pattern was in
use by another European Manufacturer and that it could be adapted
to the Jaguar with a minor change to the V12 block casting. This
made a cheaper installation as the XK8 was slated to replacethe XJS
in a few years.–
The original message included these comments:

Nope! Reportedly the bolt pattern changed from a Jaguar-unique
pattern on the 5.3 to a different Jaguar-unique pattern on the 6.0!


850225/679,1E21003,2W2001BW,JNAEY3AC100218,SAJNV4841KC156072
HEIDELBERG HEIGHTS, Australia
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

In reply to a message from PeterCrespin sent Thu 5 Apr 2012:

The GM400 that jaguar used was not an ‘‘uprated’’ version, if
anything it was down rated, as the Jaguar case is much lighter and
is known to break the clutch pack circlip retaining lugs on a
regular basis. This does’t happen on normal GM400’s.–
The original message included these comments:

AFAIK the Jag trannies and torque converters are uprated compared
to the run-of-the-mill GM stuff. If I was a seller of upmarket


850225/679,1E21003,2W2001BW,JNAEY3AC100218,SAJNV4841KC156072
HEIDELBERG HEIGHTS, Australia
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

In reply to a message from Norman LUTZ sent Thu 5 Apr 2012:

I thought I read here somewhere that the Jag TCs were oven brazed
or something, to survive higher revs than the average engine?
Thought I’d read the internals were altered to suit Jag as well?
Maybe those were the BW trannies?

Cheerfully admit to very little knowledge of automatic except how
to crane them into the trailer to the junk yard and fit the manuals
other markets got.

But I still wouldn’t regard Jag’s actions as even odd, let alone
stupid from Jag’s point of view - not least because I don’t know
any of the facts they looked at when deciding what to do. Don’t
suppose anyone else does either, but it’s not mandatory to let
facts get in the way of our opinions I guess.

The European (Mercedes?) prior use is likely the key and makes it
even less of a stupid decision for a small-scale manufacturer like
Jaguar.

Pete–
The original message included these comments:

The GM400 that jaguar used was not an ‘‘uprated’’ version, if
anything it was down rated, as the Jaguar case is much lighter and
is known to break the clutch pack circlip retaining lugs on a
regular basis. This does’t happen on normal GM400’s.


1E75339 66 D, 1E33100 66 FHC, 1R7977 69 OTS, 1R9720 69OTS
Cambridge, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

Hi Pete
It’s my understanding that the GM 400 used in the jag v12’s is the same as the one used in Land Rover, Ferrari, Rolls-Royce…and yes the TC is furnace brazed.
But I don’t really know; just that it’s different and the tranny shop that did mine said so, and made sure that mine was overhauled that way…and I trust them…and it’s been a good bunch of miles since it was done.

Just Sayin’

Bill
Alaska
'86 v12 vdPOn Apr 6, 2012, at 8:53 AM, PeterCrespin wrote:

In reply to a message from Norman LUTZ sent Thu 5 Apr 2012:

I thought I read here somewhere that the Jag TCs were oven brazed
or something, to survive higher revs than the average engine?
Thought I’d read the internals were altered to suit Jag as well?
Maybe those were the BW trannies?

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

“Same” is always open to interpretation :-). Fundamentally the same, or
same down to the very last detail?

Ages ago I had (but then lost) a master listing of all the 400 transmission
identification codes, including Jag, RR, etc. It was from “TurboHydramatic
Division of GM”.

Jag, RR, etc ID codes were all different. Of course the differences were not
actually explained in the listing as it was merely an ID guide. In some
cases the differences might have been very minor…or not.

Even when GM was using the 400 in its own cars and trucks there were quite a
few sub-variations. Different bolt patterns, TCs, valve bodies, modulators,
governors, etc. I remember that some of the late 60s Pontiac governors were
desirable because Pontiac generally specified higher shift points for their
performance cars than Chev, Olds, and Buick.

Most of the internal parts were the same----clutches, drums, etc. except for
a select few HP and truck applications, it seems. There were some HD
versions, I think, used in bigger trucks and motor homes, etc. I dunno.
This is from decades ago. Memories fade.

I believe that Jag 400s were tweaked a bit in '89 or so. I’m sure it’s been
discussed on these pages.

When I was having mine rebuilt I spoke to a couple [what appeared to be]
very experienced torque convertor guys. They agreed that Jaguar specified a
higher grade (and higher stall speed) convertor similar to what GM used in
some of it’s hotter hot rods, as I believe someone here already mentioned,
and that a garden variety replacement would not hold up to 6500 rpm use.

Back in the day (I’m talkin’ late 70s, early 80s here) the old 400s were
often slipping badly and due for o/haul at 70-80k miles. Sure, some lasted
much longer…but many didn’t. I suspect the very soft, long shifts…most
were calibrated that way… contributed to wear, as did lack of care, of
course. But, still, the 400 can take lots of power without flyin’ apart.

Invoices with my XJS showed the trans was overhauled at 70-80k miles or so.
I had to have it re-done right after buying the car (grrrr!) . Turns out a
seal was missing, or installed wrong…something like that.

Sorry for rambling…

Doug Dwyer
Longview Washington USA
1995 XJR

Hi Pete
It’s my understanding that the GM 400 used in the jag v12’s is the same as
the one used in Land Rover, Ferrari, Rolls-Royce…and yes the TC is furnace
brazed.

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !From: “Bill de Creeft” decreeft@xyz.net

Yes, thanks Doug; in this case ‘same’ meant bolt pattern, mainly…but he mentioned those other makes .

He was in Port Angeles, and friends of a knowledgable friend, he was very specific in the worth of waiting for the right kind of TC and same thing in hanging on to the original jag 400 even if it meant waiting a day for the parts it would take.

I am anybody’s huckleberry on these matters !

Bill
Alaska
'86 V12 vdPOn Apr 6, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Doug Dwyer wrote:

“Same” is always open to interpretation :-). Fundamentally the same, or same down to the very last detail?

Ages ago I had (but then lost) a master listing of all the 400 transmission identification codes, including Jag, RR, etc. It was from “TurboHydramatic Division of GM”.

Jag, RR, etc ID codes were all different. Of course the differences were not actually explained in the listing as it was merely an ID guide. In some cases the differences might have been very minor…or not.

Even when GM was using the 400 in its own cars and trucks there were quite a few sub-variations. Different bolt patterns, TCs, valve bodies, modulators, governors, etc. I remember that some of the late 60s Pontiac governors were desirable because Pontiac generally specified higher shift points for their performance cars than Chev, Olds, and Buick.

Most of the internal parts were the same----clutches, drums, etc. except for a select few HP and truck applications, it seems. There were some HD versions, I think, used in bigger trucks and motor homes, etc. I dunno. This is from decades ago. Memories fade.

I believe that Jag 400s were tweaked a bit in '89 or so. I’m sure it’s been discussed on these pages.

When I was having mine rebuilt I spoke to a couple [what appeared to be] very experienced torque convertor guys. They agreed that Jaguar specified a higher grade (and higher stall speed) convertor similar to what GM used in some of it’s hotter hot rods, as I believe someone here already mentioned, and that a garden variety replacement would not hold up to 6500 rpm use.

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

I thought I read here somewhere that the Jag TCs were oven brazed or
something, to survive higher revs than the average engine?

Don’t think so. Woulda been nice!

But I still wouldn’t regard Jag’s actions as even odd, let alone
stupid from Jag’s point of view - not least because I don’t know any
of the facts they looked at when deciding what to do. Don’t suppose
anyone else does either, but it’s not mandatory to let facts get in
the way of our opinions I guess.

They were designing their own engine from the ground up. They could
have designed the mating flange to the bellhousing/transmission to
any standard that would surround the appropriate size TC. At the
time, that would have included the Chevrolet standard – used in
Corvettes – as well as I believe Pontiac had its own standard.
Devising their own standard, and having special GM400 transmissions
made specifically for Jaguar rather than simply using the same units
that Corvette was using, was seriously stupid. IMHO. And then when
the 6.0 comes out, after reworking the entire production line, they
adopt an entirely new mating pattern – and make exactly the same
mistake again. If I’da been in charge at Ford/Jaguar, some heads
would have rolled.

The European (Mercedes?) prior use is likely the key and makes it even
less of a stupid decision for a small-scale manufacturer like Jaguar.

If the 6.0 pattern is in fact the same as one used in a Mercedes or
some other make, that would make it less stupid for sure. But AFAIK
the 5.3 pattern wasn’t used on ANYTHING other than Jaguar V12’s. And
I wouldn’t think very highly of Mercedes for opting to use a GM400
transmission and coming up with THEIR own mating pattern either.

I feel the same way about wheels. There should be a 4-lug pattern, a
5-lug pattern, a 6-lug pattern, and perhaps some larger patterns for
trucks. There should be perhaps two offsets, one for RWD cars and
one for FWD. That’s it. Why we are faced with zillions of different
lug patterns and offsets for every make and model car in the world is
just poor planning, engineers should have been fired for such poor
decisions.

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !On 6 Apr 2012 at 9:53, PeterCrespin wrote:

Hello Kirbert and Doug

So then is the GM 400 bolt pattern that fits the V12 5.3L the same bolt pattern as the GM 400 that fits the V12 6L ?

Because I don’t know anything about the trans that’s on the 6L and I just assumed it’s the same unit.

The bolt pattern that fits the 5.3 L is the one that fits RR and Ferrari…so I just figured that’s reasonable; they used a pre-existing tranny when they adapted to it… not so ?

It doesn’t really matter, I guess; at the time I was looking for a GM400 that would replace mine and was given the information I quoted earlier today.

Definitely called for a furnace brazed torque converter…I had to buy one.

Am I not understanding something here?

Bill
'86 V12 vdPOn Apr 6, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Kirbert wrote:

On 6 Apr 2012 at 9:53, PeterCrespin wrote:

I thought I read here somewhere that the Jag TCs were oven brazed or
something, to survive higher revs than the average engine?

Don’t think so. Woulda been nice!

But I still wouldn’t regard Jag’s actions as even odd, let alone
stupid from Jag’s point of view - not least because I don’t know any
of the facts they looked at when deciding what to do. Don’t suppose
anyone else does either, but it’s not mandatory to let facts get in
the way of our opinions I guess.

They were designing their own engine from the ground up. They could
have designed the mating flange to the bellhousing/transmission to
any standard that would surround the appropriate size TC. At the
time, that would have included the Chevrolet standard – used in
Corvettes – as well as I believe Pontiac had its own standard.
Devising their own standard, and having special GM400 transmissions
made specifically for Jaguar rather than simply using the same units
that Corvette was using, was seriously stupid. IMHO. And then when
the 6.0 comes out, after reworking the entire production line, they
adopt an entirely new mating pattern – and make exactly the same
mistake again.

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

Bill, my over-the-years understanding from these pages and seemingly
knowledgeable torque converter guys is that Jaguar TH400s did use a unique
torque converter, similar to those used behind some of GMs very high output
V8s. The stall speed was higher than typical and they were built and/or
balanced for higher rpm use. The Jag unit was also a bit unique for using 6
mounting lugs rather than the usual three.

That’s when they were new, but that was a long time ago…

Brand new converters are very expensive so in the transmission rebuilding
trade it is universal practice to use rebuilt torque converters, and T/C
rebuilding is a sub-industry of the trans rebuilding trade. Since there is
virtually no demand for them, new T/Cs generally cut from production early
on and stocks are quickly depleted…especially true with the special torque
converters.

The overwhelming majority of rebuilt torque converters are low cost
run-of-the-mill units designed and perfectly well suited for ordinary
applications. If you want something unique, such as for a Jag V12, you pay
extra and wait…and probably deal with a specialist who will use furnace
brazing on assembly (to help hold all the pieces together at high rpm), set
it up for the right stall speed (about 2000 rpm for the Jag V12s), and
possibly add an anti-ballooning plate to the front. With any luck (heh heh)
it’ll work right and all hold together so that neither he nor the
transmission shop have an expensive comeback on their hands :-).

I can’t say with any certainty that the original Jag TCs were furnace
brazed. I seriously doubt it. However, it is a common industry practice when
performance/high rpm/HD torque converters are specified. If a TC rebuilder
got hold of an actual V12 TC (they’re a bit rare) I very strongly suspect
he’d furnace braze it on general principles…and charge accordingly.

I’ll add that numerous sources have advised me that a garden-variety rebuilt
TH400 TC will absolutely not hold up to the high rpm use that will
potentially be seen behind a Jag V12. They simply are not assembled or
balanced to a high enough standard.

Straying a bit I’ll also add that the same advice has been given about the
popular TH700/4L60 transmission swap. Unless upgraded and purpose-built they
simply will not tolerate 6500 rpm use.

Well, there, FWIW, that’s my take on the whole matter. I’ll stay out of the
bolt pattern discussion…I always get confused :slight_smile:

Cheers
Doug Dwyer
Longview Washington USA
1995 XJR

Definitely called for a furnace brazed torque converter…I had to buy one.

Am I not understanding something here?

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !From: “Bill de Creeft” decreeft@xyz.net

In reply to a message from Bill de Creeft sent Sat 7 Apr 2012:

Bill, the answer is NO. The 5.3 bolt pattern is different than the
6.0.
The early Turbo 400 can be bolted to the 6.0 block, by drilling
holes for the bolts. The 4L80E trans might be able to be bolted to
the 5.3 block, but you might have to do some welding, as the
pattern is larger.
If you want, email me and I will send you a pic of both engines,
showing the difference.
I would do it here, but don’t know how.–
The original message included these comments:

So then is the GM 400 bolt pattern that fits the V12 5.3L the same bolt pattern as the GM 400 that fits the V12 6L ?


Dr. Chadbourn Bolles, JaguarXJ_S@Yahoo.com
Leesville, SC, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

Hi Doug

(Thanks for your ever respectful tone, Good Sir!)

Well there’s a difference right there; six mounting lugs rather than three…‘supposed’ to be furnace brazed; what other differences, one wonders?

Question is, is that a “jaguar thing” or a more common thing…?

It seems to me there are a bunch that fit the description.

Monday I’m going to call the transmission shop in Port Angeles, and if it’s the same guy in business I’m going to pick his brain…I’m ‘curiouser and curiouser’.

I have a very good friend of 40 years that lives on the Olympic Peninsula…and he was a friend in California even before that…who was in the foreign car dismantling business all those years…laid a lot of jags to rest.

He trailered the jag to the tranny shop in Port A. for me and the shop owner was knowledgable and the price was very fair…car has been Alaska/California twice since then.

I know what i was told and it was of interest to me as I was a long way from home…it’s just that i don’t trust my memory anymore when I start quoting things I “know”.

Thanks, Doug

Later,

Bill
Alaska
'86 v12 vdp (Canadian Model)On Apr 7, 2012, at 5:32 AM, Doug Dwyer wrote:

Bill, my over-the-years understanding from these pages and seemingly knowledgeable torque converter guys is that Jaguar TH400s did use a unique torque converter, similar to those used behind some of GMs very high output V8s. The stall speed was higher than typical and they were built and/or balanced for higher rpm use. The Jag unit was also a bit unique for using 6 mounting lugs rather than the usual three.

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

So then is the GM 400 bolt pattern that fits the V12 5.3L the same
bolt pattern as the GM 400 that fits the V12 6L ?

Nope! And technically they don’t call the tranny on the 6L a GM400,
they use the later style designation. And it’s a 4-sp.

The bolt pattern that fits the 5.3 L is the one that fits RR and
Ferrari…so I just figured that’s reasonable; they used a
pre-existing tranny when they adapted to it… not so ?

Who came first? And when they first chose the GM400, why didn’t they
simply use the same bolt pattern that GM uses on their cars? Or
perhaps the Pontiac version, which IIRC looked like a more sensible
scheme to me.

Definitely called for a furnace brazed torque converter…I had to buy
one.

I’m pretty sure the 5.3 did NOT come with a furnace brazed TC.
However, it’s fairly common for anyone replacing the TC to spec a
furnace brazed unit because it’s better for high-rpm use.

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !On 6 Apr 2012 at 23:35, Bill de Creeft wrote:

In reply to a message from Kirbert sent Sun 8 Apr 2012:

The first production auto-box behind the 5.3 V12 was the Borg
Warner, no?
The 5.3L bolt pattern never changed, afaik… so I am wondering
if the bolt pattern was originally some sort of BW standard.
Bob–
The original message included these comments:

Who came first? And when they first chose the GM400, why didn’t they
simply use the same bolt pattern that GM uses on their cars? Or
perhaps the Pontiac version, which IIRC looked like a more sensible
scheme to me.


89 XJS Coupe, Mesa AZ www.goflyrc.com/projects/XJS/xjs.htm
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !