IllustrationTIRE DELAMINATION. *NLM
1996 Isuzu Trooper
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1996 Isuzu Trooper do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 25.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Trooper 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
Limited mileage data: 5 of 51 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
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.
- Suspension. Review the 13 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 8 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 7 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
5 crash reports1 fire reports2 injury reports
Tires complaints
5 reportsTHE RIGHT FRONT TIRE BLEWOUT WHILE PARKED IN A PARKING LOT CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE TURN SIGNAL AND FENDER, SEVERAL DAYS LATER THE LEFT FRONT TIRE BLEWOUT WHILE STILL AT THE DEALER BEING REPAIRED CAUSING ADDITIONAL DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE, THE CONSUMER REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT (GENERAL GRABBER ST TIRES P245-70R16). NLM
SIDEWALL FAILURE IN BOTH INCIDENTS (DOT NUMBER: ELMTCLL156 TIRESIZE: P245/70R16)
SIDEWALL FAILURE IN BOTH ACCIDENTS. *JB ***DIMSII IVOQ ENTRY POSTED AFTER 12/12/02 CUT-OVER TO ARTEMIS****734337
LEFT FRONT TIRES FAILED. *AK
Official recalls
297V092001 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
Jun 3, 1997
THE LEFT FRONT BRAKE LINES WERE INSTALLED IMPROPERLY AT THE ASSEMBLY LINE RESULTING IN INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE BRAKE LINE AND AN UPPER CONTROL ARM OF THE SUSPENSION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE LINE CAN BE DAMAGED DURING VEHICLE OPERATION AND CAN RESULT IN BRAKE FLUID LEAKAGE, REDUCED BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS, AND INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE BRAKE LINE AND THE UPPER CONTROL ARM. IF THE CLEARANCE IS NOT ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS, THE BRAKE LINE WILL BE REPLACED.
96V248001 · Seat Belts:rear/other
Dec 12, 1996
CERTAIN VEHICLES WERE MANUFACTURED WITH AN INCORRECT REAR CENTER SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY BUCKLE. THE MISBUILD INVOLVED FITTING A BUCKLE FOR ANOTHER MARKET WITH THE CORRECT U.S. SPECIFICATION SEAT BELT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: SUCH INSTALLATION RESULTS IN A REAR CENTER SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY IN WHICH THE BELT TONGUE CANNOT BE INSERTED INTO THE BUCKLE AND A CONSQUENT INABILITY OF THE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE PROPER OCCUPANT RESTRAINT DURING PANIC BRAKING OF THE VEHICLE OR AN ACCIDENT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE REAR CENTER SEAT BELT TONGUE AND BUCKLE AND INCORRECT BUCKLE ASSEMBLIES WILL BE REPLACED.
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
1DP96011 · Risk Of Rollover
Opened Aug 20, 1996 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Structure
CU ATTORNEY (NANCY PERKINS, ARNOLD & PORTER) AND ODI AGREED THAT AN EXTENSION IN THE PETITION REVIEW PROCESS WILL BE NECESSARY TO ALLOW ODI TIME TO CONDUCT A PROPER REVIEW OF THE NEW MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY CU ON DECEMBER 23, 1996.THEREFORE, THE NEW DUE DATE WILL BE APRIL 21, 1997.CONSUMERS UNION (CU) PETITIONED THE AGENCY TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE 1995 AND 1996 MODEL ISUZU TROOPER AND ACURA SLX VEHICLES ARE DEFECTIVE WITHIN THE MEANING OF 49 U.S. C. CHAPTER 301.SPECIFICALLY, CU ALLEGED THAT TESTING DEMONSTRATED A DANGEROUS PROPENSITY OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES TO ROLL OVER WHILE PERFORMING A DYNAMIC STEERING MANEUVER TO AVOID EMERGANCY SITUATIONS.