TAKATA RECALL THE WIRING FOR HEADLIGHT SWITCH BURNT UP AND SWITCH MELTED I SAW A LOT OF THE SAME PROBLEMS ON THE INTERNET BUT NO RECALL ON THE 1500 JUST THE 3500 FOR THE SAME PROBLEM
1996 Dodge RAM 1500
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1996 Dodge RAM 1500 do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 520.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all RAM 1500 years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
84 reports with mileage · 214 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Power Train. Review the 52 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 46 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 35 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Exterior Lighting complaints
12 reportsIN THE 1994-2001 MODEL YEAR DODGE RAM 1500, 2500 AND 3500 TRUCKS THERE IS NO RELAY IN THE WIRING CIRCUITRY USE FOR THE HEADLIGHTS. WHEN THE RAM WAS REDESIGNED IN 1994, THE ENGINEERS DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CHANGE THE 40-YEAR OLD DESIGN FOR THE HEADLIGHT SYSTEM; FEELING ONLY THE NEED TO USE A LARGER GAUGE WIRE TO HANDLE THE…
Read full complaint
IN THE 1994-2001 MODEL YEAR DODGE RAM 1500, 2500 AND 3500 TRUCKS THERE IS NO RELAY IN THE WIRING CIRCUITRY USE FOR THE HEADLIGHTS. WHEN THE RAM WAS REDESIGNED IN 1994, THE ENGINEERS DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CHANGE THE 40-YEAR OLD DESIGN FOR THE HEADLIGHT SYSTEM; FEELING ONLY THE NEED TO USE A LARGER GAUGE WIRE TO HANDLE THE EXCESSIVE HEAT OF THE HALOGEN BULBS. UNFORTUNATELY, NEITHER THE WIRES NOR THE SWITCH OR INTERNAL RHEOSTAT (FOR THE INSTRUMENT PANEL LIGHTING) COULD HANDLE THIS LOAD AND THE FOLLOWING NEAR TRAGIC EVEN HAS BEEN AN ALL TOO COMMON OCCURRENCE. A RECALL (OR AT THE VERY LEAST A TSB HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE 3500 MODEL DODGE RAMS, WHICH ARE COMPRISED OF THE EXACT SAME SWITCH AND WIRING, BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN NOTED ABOUT THE 1500 OR 2500 MODELS. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS, AND THIS IS THE VERY REASON I FEEL COMPELLED TO BE WRITING THIS COMPLAINT IN THE FIRST PLACE. ONE NIGHT I WAS DRIVING ALONG THE FREEWAY AT ABOUT 55-MPH WHEN THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH, RELAY AND CONNECTED WIRING ALL BECAME OVERHEATED, CAUSING THEM TO MELT. BECOMING FRANTIC, I WAS ABLE TO QUICKLY WIGGLE THE DIMMER SWITCH (COMBINATION/TURN SIGNAL SWITCH), THEN THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH UNTIL I GOT THEM TO COME BACK ON. DURING THAT EPISODE I HAD THEM GO OUT ON ME ABOUT 4 TIMES THAT I RECALL. CURRENTLY THE VEHICLE REMAINS UNFIXED AND IS NOT DRIVABLE AT NIGHT. BEING A MECHANIC, MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS TO CHECK THE RELAYS AND FUSES TO SEE IF THEY WERE BLOWN OR BAD. TO MY DISMAY, I COULD NOT FIND ANY RELAYS! THIS WAS HOW I DISCOVERED, THROUGH SOME ONLINE RESEARCH, ABOUT THE RECURRING PROBLEM WITH THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH- HOW I WAS NOT ALONE IN THIS SITUATION AND THE REST OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PARAGRAPH. I WILL GLADLY BE AVAILABLE FOR PHONE CALLS, QUESTIONS, AND TO TAKE PICTURES OF THE PARTS IN QUESTION. *TR
TURN SIGNALS FAILED, CHECKED FUSE, REPLACED FLASHER RELAY, REPLACED MULTI-FUNCTION TURN/DIMMER/WIPER SWITCH AND CHECKED ALL BULBS AND STILL NO TURN SIGNALS. HAZARD FLASHERS WORKING CORRECTLY. PROBLEM STILL EXIST. *TR
THE SWITCH FOR THE HEADLIGHTS MUST BE FALSE SINCE THIS IS ALREADY THE SECOND TIME IN THE TWO YEARS THAT I HAVE OWNED MY TRUCK THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED. I UNDERSTAND THAT RECALLS DO OCCUR, BUT THIS IS VERY EXPENSIVE AND OUT OF MY WALLET. NOW, I DOUBT THAT I WILL BUY A DODGE AGAIN SINCE DODGE DOES NOT COVER ITS MISTAKES. *AK
WHILE DRIVING THE CONSUMER NOTICED SMOKE COMING FROM THE VENTS. THE CONSUMER HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO A MECHANIC, IN WHICH HE SUGGESTED THAT THE HEADLIGHT WIRING HARNESS SWITCH MELTED. *AK *SC
CONSUMER CALLED COMPLAINING ABOUT HEADLIGHT SWITCH PROBLEMS. CONSUMER WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE RAM 3500 SERIES, BUT NOT ON THE RAM 1500, WHICH WAS THE ONE HE HAD. DEALER WAS CONTACTED, AND SOLD THE CONSUMER A REPLACEMENT SWITCH. HE COMPARED THE NEW SWITCH TO THE ONE ON THE 3500 SERIES, AND STATED THAT THEY WER…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER CALLED COMPLAINING ABOUT HEADLIGHT SWITCH PROBLEMS. CONSUMER WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE RAM 3500 SERIES, BUT NOT ON THE RAM 1500, WHICH WAS THE ONE HE HAD. DEALER WAS CONTACTED, AND SOLD THE CONSUMER A REPLACEMENT SWITCH. HE COMPARED THE NEW SWITCH TO THE ONE ON THE 3500 SERIES, AND STATED THAT THEY WERE IDENTICAL.*AK WHILE DRIVING HOME CONSUMER SMELT WIRES BURNING AND THE HEADLIGHT CUT OFF THEN CAME BACK ON. CONSUMER STATED IF THE SWITCH WAS THE PROBLEM ON THE OLDER MODEL RAM'S, THEN THEY ARE A PROBLEM WITH HIS LATER MODEL. *PH *NLM
I HAVE A 1996 DODGE RAM 1500 PICKUP, WITH 104,000 MILES. THE HEAD LIGHT SWITCH SHORT CIRCUITED WHICH CAUSED THE WIRING CONNECTOR AND THE SWITCH CONNECTOR TO OVER HEAT AND MELT. I HAVE PURCHASED A NEW SWITCH AND THE AUTO PARTS STORE SAYS THIS HAPPENS OFTEN. ALSO WITH THE SWITCH OUT OF WORKING ORDER I HAD NO LIGHTS, THIS HAPPENE…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 1996 DODGE RAM 1500 PICKUP, WITH 104,000 MILES. THE HEAD LIGHT SWITCH SHORT CIRCUITED WHICH CAUSED THE WIRING CONNECTOR AND THE SWITCH CONNECTOR TO OVER HEAT AND MELT. I HAVE PURCHASED A NEW SWITCH AND THE AUTO PARTS STORE SAYS THIS HAPPENS OFTEN. ALSO WITH THE SWITCH OUT OF WORKING ORDER I HAD NO LIGHTS, THIS HAPPENED AT NIGHT. *JB
HEADLIGHT SWITCH WOULD OVERHEAT WHEN HEADLIGHTS ARE TURNED ON. DEALER CONTACTED. FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION.*AK
DISSIMLAR METAL CONTACTS RE. TAILIGHT SOCKETS AND TYPE 3157 BULBS. BRAKE/TURN/EMERGENCY FLASHER SIGNAL LIGHTS FAIL TO LIGHT INTERMITTENTLY (BOTH SIDES). (DASHBOARD FLASHER LIGHTS INDICATE NORMAL OPERATION.) TWICE REPLACED BULBS, BUT WITH LATER FAILURE IT WAS NOTED THAT MOVING UNLIT BULB OR WIGGLING IT CAUSES IT TO WORK. INSPE…
Read full complaint
DISSIMLAR METAL CONTACTS RE. TAILIGHT SOCKETS AND TYPE 3157 BULBS. BRAKE/TURN/EMERGENCY FLASHER SIGNAL LIGHTS FAIL TO LIGHT INTERMITTENTLY (BOTH SIDES). (DASHBOARD FLASHER LIGHTS INDICATE NORMAL OPERATION.) TWICE REPLACED BULBS, BUT WITH LATER FAILURE IT WAS NOTED THAT MOVING UNLIT BULB OR WIGGLING IT CAUSES IT TO WORK. INSPECTING BULB SHOWS CORROSION/ARCING AT CONTACT POINT(S). I NOW CARRY AN EMORY BOARD TO CLEAN CORROSION FROM CONTACT POINTS WHEN FAILURE NOTED/REPORTED. (3-7 MOS MTBF) I INTEND TO REPORT THIS TO THE UNDERWRITERS LAB AND TO "SYLVANIA" AS AN INCOMPATIBILITY/DESIGN ELECTRICAL DEFECT.
HEADLIGHT SWITCH GOT HOT AND MELTED ITSELF AND THE ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR CAUSING HEADLIGHTS TO QUIT WROKING WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT. DASH WAS EXTREMELY HOT ABOVE SWITCH. NO OTHER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ADDED TO HEADLIGHT CIRCUIT. CONTACTED CHRYSLER BUT THEY SAID IT WAS NOT THEIR PROBLEM. I HAVE THE FAILED COMPONENTS AND CAN PROV…
Read full complaint
HEADLIGHT SWITCH GOT HOT AND MELTED ITSELF AND THE ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR CAUSING HEADLIGHTS TO QUIT WROKING WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT. DASH WAS EXTREMELY HOT ABOVE SWITCH. NO OTHER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ADDED TO HEADLIGHT CIRCUIT. CONTACTED CHRYSLER BUT THEY SAID IT WAS NOT THEIR PROBLEM. I HAVE THE FAILED COMPONENTS AND CAN PROVIDE THEM OR PICTURES IF REQUIRED. REPLACEMENT SWITCH ALSO INCLUDED A CONNECTOR AND PIGTAIL. IS THIS BECAUSE THEY SEE THIS PROBLEM A LOT? NORMALLY YOU WOULD HAVE TO BUY PARTS SEPARATELY.*AK
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
1DP03006 · Seat Back Failure
Opened Sep 23, 2003 · Closed Apr 8, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seats; Seats:front Assembly:recliner
ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 30 INCIDENTS WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THE SEAT BACK COLLAPSED IN A REAR IMPACT CRASH.THESE INCIDENTS ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO 23 INJURIES AND TWO DEATHS.THE DATA PRESENTED TO ODI SHOW THAT THE SEAT BACK STRENGTH OF THE FRONT SEATS COMPLY WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 207. SEATING SYSTEM.ACCORDING TO DAIMLERCHRYLSER THE FRONT SEATS WERE DESIGNED TO COLLAPSE REARWARD IN REAR IMPACT CRASHES AS PART OF THE ENERGY ABSORPTIONCAPABILITIES OF THE SEATING SYSTEM TO REDUCE THE CHANCE OF SERIOUS INJURY TO THE OCCUPANT.RATES OF OCCURANCE WERE COMPARED TO PEER VEHICLES, AND IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE PERFORMACE OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE WAS COMPARABLE TO THOSE VEHICLES.IN VIEW OF THE FORGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION REMEDY OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AS DEFINED BY THE PETITIONER AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THERFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE THE NHTSA'S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY'S MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.FOR FURTHER DETAILS, REFER TO ODI'S RESPONSE TO THE PETITION PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER VOL.69, NO. 60 , DATED MARCH 29, 2004.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Seats
ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 30 INCIDENTS WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THE SEAT BACK COLLAPSED IN A REAR IMPACT CRASH.THESE INCIDENTS ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO 23 INJURIES AND TWO DEATHS.THE DATA PRESENTED TO ODI SHOW THAT THE SEAT BACK STRENGTH OF THE FRONT SEATS COMPLY WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 207. SEATING SYSTEM.ACCORDING TO DAIMLERCHRYLSER THE FRONT SEATS WERE DESIGNED TO COLLAPSE REARWARD IN REAR IMPACT CRASHES AS PART OF THE ENERGY ABSORPTIONCAPABILITIES OF THE SEATING SYSTEM TO REDUCE THE CHANCE OF SERIOUS INJURY TO THE OCCUPANT.RATES OF OCCURANCE WERE COMPARED TO PEER VEHICLES, AND IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE PERFORMACE OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE WAS COMPARABLE TO THOSE VEHICLES.IN VIEW OF THE FORGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION REMEDY OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AS DEFINED BY THE PETITIONER AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THERFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE THE NHTSA'S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY'S MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.FOR FURTHER DETAILS, REFER TO ODI'S RESPONSE TO THE PETITION PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER VOL.69, NO. 60 , DATED MARCH 29, 2004.
Seats:front Assembly:recliner
ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 30 INCIDENTS WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THE SEAT BACK COLLAPSED IN A REAR IMPACT CRASH.THESE INCIDENTS ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO 23 INJURIES AND TWO DEATHS.THE DATA PRESENTED TO ODI SHOW THAT THE SEAT BACK STRENGTH OF THE FRONT SEATS COMPLY WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 207. SEATING SYSTEM.ACCORDING TO DAIMLERCHRYLSER THE FRONT SEATS WERE DESIGNED TO COLLAPSE REARWARD IN REAR IMPACT CRASHES AS PART OF THE ENERGY ABSORPTIONCAPABILITIES OF THE SEATING SYSTEM TO REDUCE THE CHANCE OF SERIOUS INJURY TO THE OCCUPANT.RATES OF OCCURANCE WERE COMPARED TO PEER VEHICLES, AND IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE PERFORMACE OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE WAS COMPARABLE TO THOSE VEHICLES.IN VIEW OF THE FORGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION REMEDY OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AS DEFINED BY THE PETITIONER AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THERFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE THE NHTSA'S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY'S MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.FOR FURTHER DETAILS, REFER TO ODI'S RESPONSE TO THE PETITION PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER VOL.69, NO. 60 , DATED MARCH 29, 2004.
Illustration