IllustrationHEADLAMP SWITCH BURNED OUT, CAUSING CONNECTOR TO BURN, WHICH COULD RESULT IN A FIRE HAZARD. THE DEALER WAS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. THERE WAS A RECALL REGARDING HEADLAMP SWITCH, BUT CONSUMER'S VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL.THIS VEHICLE IS ALSO EQUIPPED WITH TRAILOR TOWING PACKAGE. RECALL 99V024000. *AK
1997 Dodge RAM 3500
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1997 Dodge RAM 3500 do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 124.5.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all RAM 3500 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
20–25K
425–50K
450–75K
775–100K
13100–150K
11150K+
41 reports with mileage · 84 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 26 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Exterior Lighting. Review the 25 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
4 crash reports12 fire reports5 injury reports
What owners actually said
125 reportsBOTH PROBLEMS COULD HAVE LED TO CRASHES IF NOT CAUGHT AND MAJOR INJURIES AND OR FATALITIES. WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS EVER SINCE THEY HAVE STARTED AND THE TRUCK HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP MORE THAN IT HAS BEEN OUT. WE KNOW THAT BREAKDOWNS DO EXSIST AND WILL HAPPEN BUT THIS MUCH AND THE SAME PARTS IS A LITTLE RIDICULOUS.
ONE END OF THE TRACK BAR,WHICH ALLOWS THE FRONT AXLE TO MOVE FROM SIDE TO SIDE,HAS WORN OUT CAUSING VEHICLE TO WANDER. ALSO A COUPLE OF TIE RODS ARE WEARING OUT. *AK
WHEN TRAVELING AT ANY SPEED VEHICLE STALLS AND CUTS OFF WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING, RESULTING IN LOSS OF ALL POWER. ALSO, NOTICED VEHICLE WILL NOT SHIFT INTO GEAR. CONSUMER HAS CONTACTED THE DEALER, DEALER HAS YET TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. PARTS ALSO REPLACED. PLEASE PROVIDE ANY FURTHER DETAILS. *AK
DUE TO DEFECTIVE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION, VEHICLE DOES NOT SHIFT PROPERLY WHICH MAY CAUSE A REAR END COLLISION. BEEN TO DIFFERENT DEALERS, MANY TIMES, AND THEY REPLACED MANY PARTS 2-3 TIMES.. DEALER CANNOT DETERMINE THE PROBLEM. PLEASE PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION. *AK
CONSUMER COMPLAINS OF VEHICLE SHUDDERING VIOLENTLY AS THE CLUTCH AND FLY WHEEL BECOME INOPERABLE, VEHICLE PULLS TO THE RIGHT, DEALER ROTATED TIRES AND VEHICLE STILL SHAKES VIOLENTLY, DEALER REPLACED DAMPENING SHOCK, PITMAN ARM, TIE ROD, AND STEERING BOX. POSSIBLE STEERING OR SUSPENSION PROBLEM, DEALER COULDN'T REMEDY PROBLEM. …
Read full complaint
CONSUMER COMPLAINS OF VEHICLE SHUDDERING VIOLENTLY AS THE CLUTCH AND FLY WHEEL BECOME INOPERABLE, VEHICLE PULLS TO THE RIGHT, DEALER ROTATED TIRES AND VEHICLE STILL SHAKES VIOLENTLY, DEALER REPLACED DAMPENING SHOCK, PITMAN ARM, TIE ROD, AND STEERING BOX. POSSIBLE STEERING OR SUSPENSION PROBLEM, DEALER COULDN'T REMEDY PROBLEM. *JADA
TRANSMISSION IN OVERDRIVE. WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE GOES INTO NEUTRAL BECAUSE NUT ON SHAFT THAT HOLDS 5TH GEAR IN PLACE,UNSCREWED/ FELL OFF DUE TO VIBRATION. DEALER CONTACTED AND REPAIR WAS MADE APPROXIMATELY 10 TIMES. PROBLEM STILL EXISTS. PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION. *AK
WHENEVER THE BRAKES ARE APPLIED FOR A SUDDEN STOP, THE VEHCILE VEERS SEVERELY TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT, ALMOST CHANGING LANES. DEALER SAYS IT'S NORMAL. *AK
WHILE DRIVING IN "EMPTY LOADS" THE REAR ABS BRAKING SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONED, CAUSING THE REAR BRAKES TO "CATCH AND GO," RESULTING IN EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE AND ALMOST AN ACCIDENT. PLEASE PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION. *AK
DRIVER AND PASSENGER AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY IN A 50MPH HEAD ON COLLISION.
Official recalls
199V024000 · Exterior Lighting:headlights:switch
Feb 5, 1999
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MODEL 3500 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS ONLY. OPERATION OF THE HEADLAMPS OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME CAN RESULT IN HEADLAMP SWITCH FAILURE, CAUSING THE HEADLAMPS OR PARK LAMPS TO GO OUT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE LIGHTS FAIL, A VISIBILITY PROBLEM COULD OCCUR, INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE HEADLAMP SWITCH INCLUDING A RELAY IN THE PARK LAMP WIRING CIRCUIT.
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.