A Yes

B 2006

C Both

D Don't Know

E Don't Know

F Not attempted as too old for LR warranty 4.2 Supercharged Vogue SE

mine did, I thought it was a standard free option from LR

A. Yes

B. 2003

C. RNS

D. YES

E. YES

F. TOO OLD

Update:
16 posted replies to date.

13 suffered rear arch corrosion, 3 did not = 81.25% of voters' cars afflicted (those cars aged between 2002 & 2008).

Interesting to note that:

* All of the cars so far reported as being affected range from as old as 12 years to as recent as 6 years old.

* The newest car so far referred to in the poll is a 2011 model with no corrosion (lolo's) which raises the question as to whether the problem had been eradicated by LR by that time or whether there is a likely shelf life for these arches before they start to deteriorate and therefore perhaps a 2011 car is not old enough to be afflicted.

* Only 2 affected people of 13 so far replying to the poll have had corroding rear arches repaired via dealership goodwill.

* Only 1 affected person of 13 so far replying to the poll has had corroding rear arches repaired via LR warranty (it would be interesting to know the MY of that car and how old it was/ how long ago the successful claim was made).

* When I bought our car and pointed out the corroding rear arches, the Dealership told me that regardless, the vehicle was still in a saleable condition and that they would not routinely make good on such defects before selling an approved used car (which I took to mean, they probably routinely sell these cars on, knowing that they are doing so with rear arch corrosion) although in our case they readily agreed to a goodwill repair when challenged.

* A lot of information on this forum is supportive of the fact that if your rear arches have been repaired or are not affected by corrosion, you can keep it at bay by means of regular cleaning, greasing and protecting the arches via full arch length rubber strips (link to one forum suggested fix here):
http://www.fullfatrr.com/forum/topic22530.html

* Even if a poll like this yielded a persuasive argument that rear arch corrosion on the L322 was due to a manufacturing defect, I suspect the 'Ace in the pack' counter argument from LR warranty might be that the nature and type of corrosion more lends itself to a paint surface warranty claim, that aspect of the warranty being valid for only 3 years and therefore given that the L322 model is now obsolete, that window of opportunity for claimants is lessened and will close around 2015.

A Yes
B2009
C both
D yes
E no
F declined

Looked at a 2011 model the other day and it had the start of rear arch corrosion so they suffer from this as well. Gone
67 Nissan navara
67 C220 AMG
12 Tdv6 Discovery 4 HSE
09 TDV8 Westminster
59 BMW 520d touring
56 RRS tdv6 hse
02 td 6 hse

A. NO

B. 2006

C. NO

D. NO

E. One missing

F. - Current:
- L322 2006 S/C lpg
- RRC 1988 lpg / 287 000 miles
- Stage one 1981
- Lightweight 1976
- 109 SW 1968 under rebuilt

Gone: none

A No
B 2011
C No
D Yes
E Yes
F No

A. yes
B. 2004

C. Both

D. Yes (don't see what difference this makes, they're on the plastic bumper

E. No

F. Too old and bought outside of the dealer network so repaired it myself

A.Yes

B. 2008

C. RNS

D. yes

E. No

F. To old

A. Yes

B. 2011

C. Both

D. No

E. Yes

F. LR Declined. External influences apparently.
F. Dealer repaired privately at point of sale

Missing an option of Repaired out of warranty and not by LR...

A. Corrosion found on rear wheel arches?
Yes

B. Age of L322 (for example "B. 2010").
2005

C. Failing paintwork/ corrosion to both rear arches, rear near side or rear off side (simply answer "C. Both", "C. RNS" or "C. ROS")
Both

D. Rear mudflaps fitted before onset of corrosion? (simply answer "D. Yes" or "D. No" or "D. Don't know").
Yes(fitted when new)

E. Rubber arch strips fitted before onset of corrosion? (simply answer "E. Yes", "E. No" or "F. Don't know").
No

F. Successful claim made and repairs carried out? (simply answer "F. Declined" or "F. Approved via Pwarranty", "F. Approved via Cwarranty", "F. Approved via Lr goodwill" or "F. Approved via Dealership goodwill").

Rejected as fell just outside of 6years so was tidied up when i got the car and again has started as at the time the rubber strips were unknown.

Mudflaps make sod all diff as the are fitted to the rear of the arch and the front of the arch where the door is, is where it generally occurs. I'll get them sorted at some point soon and then rubber strip and apply bitumen  FFRR MY06 facelift With TDV8 Alloys Zeros/ATR's
Mantec Sump Guard, Rigid Load liner, MY10 BT upgrade.

There's another option - corrosion present within 3-year paintwork warranty period, repaired at owner's expense as LR refused to honour warranty citing "external factors - weather conditions". When I asked LR what they would recommend to stop it happening again they said they could not suggest anything in case it made things worse...

I'm still really annoyed about the whole episode and believe that LR have not acted fairly and reasonably in relation to their warranty. I asked about the other wheel arch before the warranty expired, but have not heard yet. I was wondering about going to SMMT arbitration as envisaged by the warranty handbook but was waiting for the result of the second arch question so that the two could be considered together. Has anyone been through the SMMT route and if yes was it worth it? Only Range Rovers since 1988

A. Corrosion found, nearside worse than offside.

B. 2004.

C. Both.

D. No Mud Flaps.

E. No.

F. Too old for warranty claim, repaired myself.

Steve. 1968 Series IIA Pastel Green, nearly there project

Surely rear mudflaps will at least lesson some crud ending up in the potential damage to wheel each areas?

Maybe rear mudflaps do help (I have them on my 2012 WM and also had them on the 2004 322 and P38 before that) but I still got corrosion on the 2012 car. I think the real issue is that there is inadequate panel protection. The P38 had galvanised panels, with anti-chip paint on top and then the normal paint on top of that. LR have said they no longer galvanise but ignored me when I asked what had changed otherwise. My guess is they just did normal paint and relied on the hope that most of the production would last the 3 year paintwork warranty. It's a shame that a premium product, which was costing £65,000 plus when new, was subject to that sort of cost-cutting. Only Range Rovers since 1988