IllustrationBEARINGS IN THE DIFFERENTIAL FAILED, REQUIRED REPLACEMENT. *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 reportsWHILE DRIVING AT NORMAL SPEED TRANSMISSION GEAR SLIPS INTO NEUTRAL AND VEHICLE WILL STOP ACCELERATING. TO GET IT BACK INTO GEAR, DRIVER HAS TO PUT INDICATOR INTO NEUTRAL AND SHIFT IT BACK TO DRIVE. DEALER HAS BEEN CONTACTED. *AK
THIS PROBLEM IS IN REGARDS TO THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:IGNITION:ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNIT. SUMMARY OF PROBLEM: INTERMINTENT SURGE,BUCK,DRIVELINE CLUNK, OR TRANSFER HARSHNESS. THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM AS DESCRIBED IN SERVICE BULLETIN # 96-40, NHTSA ITEM # SBO49106. I HAVE BEEN ESPERIENCING PROBLEMS WITH THIS FOR SOME TIME I HAVE APPROAC…
Read full complaint
THIS PROBLEM IS IN REGARDS TO THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:IGNITION:ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNIT. SUMMARY OF PROBLEM: INTERMINTENT SURGE,BUCK,DRIVELINE CLUNK, OR TRANSFER HARSHNESS. THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM AS DESCRIBED IN SERVICE BULLETIN # 96-40, NHTSA ITEM # SBO49106. I HAVE BEEN ESPERIENCING PROBLEMS WITH THIS FOR SOME TIME I HAVE APPROACHED 2 DIFFERENT DEALERS ,HENDRICK DODGE AND BUMPOUS DODGE. THEY RECEIVED MY TRUCK WITH 29,000 MILES ON IT CONTINUED TO DRIVE TILL WARRANTY EXPIRED AND CLAIMED NOTHING WAS WRONG. AS A RESULT OF THIS PROBLEM IT HAS LOOSENED THE THE REAR SHACKLES CAUSING THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL TO BECOME LOOSE AND CAUSE EXTREME WEAR ON THE PASSENGER SIDE TIRES. I HAVE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO SATISFACTION WITH THE EITHER DEALERSHIP THIS VEHICLE IS A LEMON. IN THE PAST I HAD TO RETURN IT 7 TIMES TO HAVE A WATER LEAK FIXED, OF COURSE NO DOCUMENTATION WAS GIVEN TO ME, AT THE TIME IT NEVER OCCURED TO ME THAT THIS WOULD BE USEFUL. SMART ON THEIR PART. I WOULD LIKE SOME HELP DEALING WITH THIS MATTER, AS I AM ONE INDIVIDUAL WITH VERY LITTLE POWER AND RECOURSE. THANK YOU KEVIN CARLSON
THIS IS A USED VEHICLE SO WE ARE UNAWARE OF ADDITIONAL FAILURES OF PREVIOUS OWNERS.
HAD THE VEHICLE SERVICED ABOUT A MONTH AGO PER MANUFACTURE RECOMMENDATIONS. NOTICED INTERMITTLY SMELL OF FUEL BUT IT BECAME INCREASING STRONGER AND MORE FREQUENT WITHIN THE LAST WEEK. FOUND THE LEAK AT THE END OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE FUEL RAIL NEXT TO THE FIRE WALL ABOVE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. CONTACTED THE DEALER IN THE PROCESS …
Read full complaint
HAD THE VEHICLE SERVICED ABOUT A MONTH AGO PER MANUFACTURE RECOMMENDATIONS. NOTICED INTERMITTLY SMELL OF FUEL BUT IT BECAME INCREASING STRONGER AND MORE FREQUENT WITHIN THE LAST WEEK. FOUND THE LEAK AT THE END OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE FUEL RAIL NEXT TO THE FIRE WALL ABOVE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. CONTACTED THE DEALER IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REPAIRED.
THERE WAS A LOSS OF STEERING DUE TO A LOOSE STEERING KNUCKLE. DRIVER WAS UNABLE TO STEER THE VEHICLE AND HIT ANOTHER VEHICLE. CHRYSLER HAS SEEN VEHICLE, AND SAID IT WAS NOT A FACTORY DEFECT. *AK
WHEN DRIVING AT ANY SPEED AND APPLYING THE BRAKES, THE ABS SYSTEM KICKS IN, AND THE BRAKE PEDAL GOES STRAIGHT TO THE FLOORBOARD. *AK
VEHICLE EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION RESULTING IN VEHICLE COLLISION INTO BRICK BUILDING, NO DEPLOYMENT OF BOTH DRIVER AND PASSENGER AIR BAGS DURING COLLISION RESULTING IN INJURY. MJS
FUEL GAUGE ISN'T WORKING, AND WHEN THE CONSUMER FILLS TANK UP, GAUGE INDICATES THE WRONG AMOUNT OF GAS. IT SHOWS THAT TANK IS ONLY HALF FULL. CONSUMER CAN'T DETERMINE HOW MANY MILES PER GALLON OF GAS THEY ARE DRIVING. *AK
WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES BRAKE PEDAL GOES TO THE FLOOR ,AND THE VEHICLE DOES NOT REGISTER. CONSUMER HAS CONTACTED DEALER. *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.