This is a pic of my nose stripe that was layed out per the dimensions giving in the 67 AIM book. Looks like the pic Mark posted IMO.
John, your 4P car is the first one I’ve ever had a chance to look at in detail so I wasn’t aware of of the no black tail panel deal.Thanks for sharing these pics with all of us.
Does it still have the square single traction bar or did it ever have one?

....

........... Here you go ....

https://www.yenko.net/forum/picture....pictureid=1003

https://www.yenko.net/forum/picture....pictureid=1004

https://www.yenko.net/forum/picture....pictureid=1006


https://www.yenko.net/forum/picture....pictureid=1005

........

Photo of the underside of the body where the single traction bar was ....


https://www.yenko.net/forum/picture....pictureid=1007

https://www.yenko.net/forum/picture....pictureid=1008

...

Is that a home built frame connector on there?

SS396 test car in May '67 issue of Motor Trend also did not have a blacked out rear tailpan.

...... Yes:shocked:

....

Was that a 375 hp car ?

...

...

... Does anyone have a copy of an original 1967 Salesman's order form ?
... I was thinking that possibly the confusion caused by the use of 4P on the cowl tag could be that on the Original Order form there may have been more then one way to order a 375hp Camaro .... by "checking " the SS 350 Option and then also "checking" the 396/375 Option
... thus switching out the 350 motor to the 396/375 motor !
... I am wondering that this confusion started on the Original Order Form being that this was the first year of the Camaro ?
.... :confused2:

...

No, it was an L35 325hp version.

Very cool!! Congrats!!