IllustrationWHILE DRIVING TRIED TO MAKE A SUDDEN STOP. PRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL TO THE FLOORBOARD VEHICLE CONTINUED TO STILL TRAVEL. CONSUMER DEPRESSED THE BREAK AGAIN AND THE VEHICLE STOPPED.*AK
1996 Dodge RAM 2500
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1996 Dodge RAM 2500 do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 275.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all RAM 2500 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
00–25K
225–50K
1050–75K
975–100K
17100–150K
35150K+
73 reports with mileage · 218 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.
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 74 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 44 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 26 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
15 crash reports15 fire reports8 injury reports
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
74 reportsEXCESSIVE WEAR OF FRONT BRAKE CALIPERS/PADS AND ROTORS. IN ADDITION, WHEEL CYLINDERS /TIE ROD END/FUEL INJECTION PUMP/RADIO MALFUNCTIONED. *AK
ENTIRE BRAKING SYSTEM FAILURE CANNOT BE REPAIRED DUE TO ENGINEERING DEFECT. VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THREE COLLISIONS DUE TO BRAKE FAILURE.
FRONT BRAKE CALIPERS FAILED.
BRAKES FAILED.
WHENEVER BRAKES ARE APPLIED, VEHICLE WOULD PULL HARD TO THE LEFT. VERY DANGEROUS WHEN TOWING TRAILER. TOOK TO DEALER & HAD ZONE REPRESENTATIVE COME IN TO CHECK. HAD EVERYTHING ON BRAKES REPLACED, BUT PROBLEM STILL EXISTS. WAS TOLD TO TRY ARBITRATION. *AK
ANTI LOCK BRAKES FAIL WHEN 4 WHEEL DRIVE IS ACTIVATED.
HEATER AND AIR CONDITIONER CONTROL FAILED.
THE REAR BRAKES WITH ABS ARE NOT PERFORMING. WHEN THE BRAKES ARE APPLIED THE CAR SWERVES LEFT OR RIGHT. *AK
LOSS OF VACUUM POWER ASSIST OVERNIGHT, NO BRAKES UNTIL VACUUM PUMP BUILDS UP PRESSURE. LOST CONTROL OF VEHICLE AND ROLLED INTO THE STREET DUE TO LOSS OF BRAKES. ALSO FRONT BRAKES PULLL TO THE RIGHT. *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
2DP03006 · 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.
PE00048 · Loss Of Throttle Control
Opened Dec 11, 2000 · Closed Mar 7, 2001
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
ALLEGED THAT THE THROTTLE CABLE CAN FRAY OR SEVER DURING NORMAL USE RESULTING IN THE THROTTLE NOT RETURNING TO IDLE OR AN INABILITY TO ACCELERATE.