IllustrationSTARTED SMELLING STRONG GAS FUMES. HAD CHECKED AND FOUND GAS TANK WAS CRACKED ON TOP AND RUNNING DOWN BOTH SIDES VERY CLOSE TO EXHAUST PIPES. FIRE HAZARD. HAD TO HAVE GAS TANK AND FUEL PUMP REPLACED AT MY EXPENSE. SEEMS TO ME A GAS TANK SHOULD LAST LONGER THAN 7 YEARS OR BE A FACTORY DEFECT.*AK
1997 Dodge RAM 1500
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1997 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
80–25K
1325–50K
2750–75K
2475–100K
44100–150K
28150K+
144 reports with mileage · 217 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.
- Structure. Review the 70 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 56 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 43 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
31 crash reports14 fire reports24 injury reports
What owners actually said
361 reportsI BOUGHT THIS TRUCK FROM A USED DEALER IN TUPELO, MS ON JULY 5, 2004. ON AUGUST 27, 2004, MY HUSBAND AND I WERE DRIVING AROUND 65-70 MPH DOWN A 4-LANE HWY IN MS WHEN I HEARD A WEIRD NOISE FROM THE FRONT END. MY HUSBAND WAS DRIVING AND AS HE STARTED TO SLOW DOWN TO GET OFF ON THE SHOULDER, THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE WHEEL BEARING…
Read full complaint
I BOUGHT THIS TRUCK FROM A USED DEALER IN TUPELO, MS ON JULY 5, 2004. ON AUGUST 27, 2004, MY HUSBAND AND I WERE DRIVING AROUND 65-70 MPH DOWN A 4-LANE HWY IN MS WHEN I HEARD A WEIRD NOISE FROM THE FRONT END. MY HUSBAND WAS DRIVING AND AS HE STARTED TO SLOW DOWN TO GET OFF ON THE SHOULDER, THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE WHEEL BEARING SHEARED THE STUDS OFF AND MY TIRE WENT SAILING OFF THE TRUCK, SLAMMING THE FRONT END DOWN ONTO THE GROUND. WHEN THIS HAPPENED IT DENTED THE FENDER AND SHOVED THE FENDER INTO THE PASSENGER DOOR PREVENTING IT FROM BEING ABLE TO BE OPENED. TRUCK WAS TOWED FROM THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT ON A TRAILER AND A NEW WHEEL BEARING WAS PUT IN. THE PART IS NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO THE STUDS BEING SHEARED OFF ON A 4-LANE HWY. WHEN PART WAS REPLACED THE WHEEL BEARING WAS CHECKED ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE, SHOWING NO REASON FOR REPLACEMENT. 2 WEEKS LATER ON MY WAY TO WORK, I FELT A SUDDEN VIBRATION IN THE TRUCK. I PULLED OFF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND CHECKED THE TRUCK, JUST BY A SUDDEN CHANCE OF LUCK I CHECK THE TIRE AND THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE HAD ALREADY SHEARED 3 OF 5 LUG NUTS OFF. ONCE AGAIN THE TRUCK WAS TOWED IN FOR REPAIR AND A NEW WHEELBEARING WAS INSTALLED ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE. WHILE THIS TRUCK HAS BEEN IN OUR POSSESSION, WE HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO IT TO MAKE IT SHEAR STUDS AND BREAK BEARINGS LIKE THAT. THE PREVIOUS OWNER TOOK VERY GOOD CARE OF THE TRUCK AS WELL, INCLUDING SERVICING AND REPLACING PARTS, AND MAINTENANCE.*AK
MY TRUCK WAS AT A STAND STILL WHEN I WAS REAR-ENDED BY ANOTHER VEHICLE. AT POINT OF IMPACT, BOTH THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDE FRONT SEATS BROKE AND RECLINED TO THE REARWARD POSITION. BOTH CAN BE PUT IN THE FORWARD AND BACK TO THE REARWARD POSITION (TOTALLY RECLINED) BY SIMPLY PUSHING IT FROM FRONT TO BACK. THE DRIVERS SIDE S…
Read full complaint
MY TRUCK WAS AT A STAND STILL WHEN I WAS REAR-ENDED BY ANOTHER VEHICLE. AT POINT OF IMPACT, BOTH THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDE FRONT SEATS BROKE AND RECLINED TO THE REARWARD POSITION. BOTH CAN BE PUT IN THE FORWARD AND BACK TO THE REARWARD POSITION (TOTALLY RECLINED) BY SIMPLY PUSHING IT FROM FRONT TO BACK. THE DRIVERS SIDE SEAT BROKE TO THE POINT THAT ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE HINGE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SEAT REMAINS TO HOLD THE BACKREST TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEAT. BOTH SEATS FAILED TO HOLD UP TO THE IMPACT! THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE DRIVERS SIDE SEAT BREAKING IS THAT MY SON, WHO WAS POSITIONED BEHIND THE DRIVERS SEAT, BROKE HIS JAW WHEN HE WAS THROWN FORWARD, AFTER THE SEAT HAD ALREADY BROKEN TO THE REARWARD POSITION. HIS FACE MADE CONTACT WITH THE HEADREST OF THE DRIVERS SIDE SEAT AS IT WAS LAYING IN HIS LAP. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO CORRECT THE FAILURE AS OF YET, AS THE CLAIMS ADJUSTER HAS YET TO INSPECT MY TRUCK. *AK
DRIVING ON A LOCAL HIGHWAY I-70 EAST BOUND, THE HOOD LATCH RELEASED WITHOUT WARNING. THE HOOD FLIPPED BACKWARDS ONTO THE WINDSHIELD. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE OR REPLACED YET. *JB
DRIVING ON A LOCAL HIGHWAY I-70 EAST BOUND, THE HOOD LATCH RELEASED WITHOUT WARNING. THE HOOD FLIPPED BACKWARDS ONTO THE WINDSHIELD. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE OR REPLACED YET. *JB
JUST HAD TO REPLACE UPPER BALL JOINTS ON MY 1997 DODGE RAM 1500 PICKUP. THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING POPPING NOISED FOR OVER A YEAR I JUST DIDN'T HAVE IT CHECKED OUT. I WROTE BECAUSE I HEARD OF THE UPPER BALL JOINTS GOING OUT ON THE DURANGO AND DAKOTA. ANYWAY, I AM OUT & $750.00.*AK
WHEEL HUB ASSEMBLY GOING OUT. OWN THE TRUCK FOR SINCE 91,000 MILES AND HAD TO REPLACE THE FRONT RT HUB ASSEMBLY 4 TIMES. IT SEAMS TO BE GOING OUT AROUND 10,000 TO 12,000 MILES. PRIOR TO THIS ONE LAST ONE WAS DONE ON 2/04 ,6/03 & 10/02 MILEAGE NOW 141,000 W/ NEW ENGINE THAT ALSO WENT .SPUN A BEARING. I NEED TO KNOW IF THERE ARE …
Read full complaint
WHEEL HUB ASSEMBLY GOING OUT. OWN THE TRUCK FOR SINCE 91,000 MILES AND HAD TO REPLACE THE FRONT RT HUB ASSEMBLY 4 TIMES. IT SEAMS TO BE GOING OUT AROUND 10,000 TO 12,000 MILES. PRIOR TO THIS ONE LAST ONE WAS DONE ON 2/04 ,6/03 & 10/02 MILEAGE NOW 141,000 W/ NEW ENGINE THAT ALSO WENT .SPUN A BEARING. I NEED TO KNOW IF THERE ARE MANY OF THESE HUB ASSEMBLYS GOING BAD ON 1997 RAMS 5.9 ENGINE. *AK
WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH DRIVER'S AIR BAG INADVERTENTLY DEPLOYED. THIS CAUSED THE DRIVER TO SUSTAIN MINOR INJURIES. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE CAUSE HAD NOT BEEN DETERMINED. *AK
I WAS DRVING DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THE TRUCK CAUGHT ON FIRE, THE FRONT CAB ONLY. ME AND MY CHILDREN JUMPED OUT JUST IN TIME BEFORE IT WAS ENGULFED IN FLAMES. *AK
WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH HOOD LATCH FAILED. AS A RESULT, THE DRIVER'S VISIBILITY WAS IMPAIRED AND THE VEHICLE WENT INTO AN EMBANKMENT. NO INJURIES REPORTED. *AK *SC *JB
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.