← New search

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 →

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.

18 crash reports17 fire reports13 injury reports

Exterior Lighting complaints

12 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Nov 15, 1999
Exterior Lighting

HEADLIGHT SWITCH FAILED DUE TO OVERHEATING WHICH CAUSED HEADLIGHTS TO GO OUT WHILE VEHICLE WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE AT 65MPH. DEALER SOLD ME A NEW SWITCH/KIT AND PROVIDED INSTALLLATION INFORMATION FOR THEIR SAFETY RECALL 819 (WHICH THEY SAID DID NOT APPLY TO THIS VEHICLE). INSTRUCTIONS TALK ABOUT LOOKING FOR A MELTED CONNE…

Read full complaint

HEADLIGHT SWITCH FAILED DUE TO OVERHEATING WHICH CAUSED HEADLIGHTS TO GO OUT WHILE VEHICLE WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE AT 65MPH. DEALER SOLD ME A NEW SWITCH/KIT AND PROVIDED INSTALLLATION INFORMATION FOR THEIR SAFETY RECALL 819 (WHICH THEY SAID DID NOT APPLY TO THIS VEHICLE). INSTRUCTIONS TALK ABOUT LOOKING FOR A MELTED CONNECTOR WHICH INDEED MY SWITCH DOES HAVE. NEW WIRING HARNESS PROVIDES A RESISTOR OR SOMETHING WHICH MY MECHANIC TELLS ME IS TO DISSIPATE HEAT! DEALER AND CHRYSLER CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHY THIS HAPPENED AND OFFER NO RELIEF BUT I STILL FEEL IF THEY KNOW THEY HAVE A PROBLEM AND ARE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO SOME OF THE VEHICLES WHY THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE THEM ON ALL OF THEM, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURS WITHOUT WARNING AND YOU ARE LEFT WITHOUT LIGHTS! FORTUANTELY I HAD FOG LIGHTS AND THE PRESENCE OF MIND TO TURN THEM ON! THANK YOU. *AK

NHTSA ODI #714804

Mileage unknown · Sep 14, 1999
Exterior LightingFire

HEADLIGHT SWITCH OVERHEATS AND CATCHES ON FIRE. ALL THE LIGHTS IN THE DASH WILL GO OUT. ALSO. DEALER HAS SENT AN UPDATED OWNERS MANUEL. *AK

NHTSA ODI #847620

Official recalls

0

No 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

1

DP03006 · 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.