IllustrationWHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES BRAKE PEDAL GOES TO THE FLOOR ,AND THE VEHICLE DOES NOT REGISTER. CONSUMER HAS CONTACTED DEALER. *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
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
43 reportsAS PER NHTSA #SB049106,BULLETIN #96-40,SEQUENCE #152.THE DESCRIPTION IN THIS REPORT DESCRIBES HOW MY TRUCK HAS DRIVEN SINCE I RECEIVED IT.I WENT THROUGH ALL THE HOOPS AND RINGS THAT THE DEALER AND THE REGIONAL MANAGER REQUIRED AND FINALLY ENDED UP IN ARBITRATION ONLY TO BE TOLD THAT MY TRUCK DIDNT HAVE A PROBLEM,WHAT I FELT (AN…
Read full complaint
AS PER NHTSA #SB049106,BULLETIN #96-40,SEQUENCE #152.THE DESCRIPTION IN THIS REPORT DESCRIBES HOW MY TRUCK HAS DRIVEN SINCE I RECEIVED IT.I WENT THROUGH ALL THE HOOPS AND RINGS THAT THE DEALER AND THE REGIONAL MANAGER REQUIRED AND FINALLY ENDED UP IN ARBITRATION ONLY TO BE TOLD THAT MY TRUCK DIDNT HAVE A PROBLEM,WHAT I FELT (AND EXPERENCED) WAS INHERENT TO THE VEHICLE AND ALL THE VIBRATION, CLUNKING AND HESITATION JUST BOTHERED ME MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE WAS BECAUSE I WAS SENSATIVE TO IT.AFTER 2 YEARS OF BATTLING WITH THIS AND BRAKE PROBLEMS(WHICH I WILL SAY ,THEY FIXED AFTER 32000 MILES AND $400+ OF MY MONEY) I COULDNT AFFORD THE TIME OFF TO CONTINUE BATTLING. NOT ONCE WAS THIS BULETIN EVER BROUGHT UP,INFACT,DURING ARBITRATION,IF WAS ASKED IF ANY BULLETINS REFERED TO PROBLEMS LIKE THIS AND THE ANSWER WAS A FLAT "NO".I STILL HAVE ALL MY RECORDS AND COPIES OF THE DEALER SERVICE RECORDS.I'LL TRY TO CALL MONDAY,07/19/99.MY HOME #IS 623-878-2138(RECORDER/FAX) CELLPHONE IS 602-321-0921.THANK YOU PHIL LOBINS. *AK
DUE TO IMPROPER UNDER ENGINEERING FOR THE SIZE OF VEHICLE, THE REAR BRAKE SHOES BURN, WHICH CAUSES EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE AND MAY RESULTIN A CRASH. PLEASE PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION. *AK
I HAVE HAD EXTENSIVE BRAKE PROBLEMS WITH MY 97 DODGE RAM. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A RATTLE FROM THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE WHEEL AREA. THERE HAS ALSO BEEN A INTERMITTENT BRAKE PULL TO THE DRIVER SIDE. IT BECAME A SERIOUS PROBLEM AFTER THE BRAKES WERE REPLACED AT 12000 MILES. THE TRUCK HAS ALSO HAD EXCESSIVE PAD WEAR. THE FIRST …
Read full complaint
I HAVE HAD EXTENSIVE BRAKE PROBLEMS WITH MY 97 DODGE RAM. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A RATTLE FROM THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE WHEEL AREA. THERE HAS ALSO BEEN A INTERMITTENT BRAKE PULL TO THE DRIVER SIDE. IT BECAME A SERIOUS PROBLEM AFTER THE BRAKES WERE REPLACED AT 12000 MILES. THE TRUCK HAS ALSO HAD EXCESSIVE PAD WEAR. THE FIRST SET WAS REPLACED ON5/15/98 WITH 12314 MILES ON THE TRUCK. THE SECOND SET WAS REPLACED ON6/1/98 WITH 13093 MILES. THE THIRD SET WAS REPLACED ON 8/13/98 WITH 16336 MILES ON THE TRUCK. THE FOURTH SET OF BRAKES WAS REPLACED ON 4/6/99 WITH 25323 MILES ON THE TRUCK. COUNTING THE ORIGINAL SET OF BRAKES, WHICH STARTED SQUEALING AT APPROXIMATELY 12000 MILES, I HAVE HAD FIVE SETS OF FRONT BRAKE PADS AND THREE SETS OF ROTORS PUT ON THIS TRUCK. NOT TO MENTION THAT THE INTERMITTENT BRAKE PULL HAS NOT GONE AWAY. EVEN AFTER INSTALLING THIS LAST SET OF PADS. I WENT TO ARBITRATION. I HAD WITNESS STATEMENTS, BUT THE ARBITRATOR DENIED MY CLAIM TO HAVE DAIMLER CHRYSLER PURCHASE MY TRUCK BACK. I HAVE ALSO HAD MANY CLOSE CALLS WHEN THE TRUCK WOULD PULL TO THE LEFT INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC. THE TRUCK HAS ALSO BOUNCED OFF OF THE CENTER MEDIAN MORE THAN ONCE. THE PATTERN IS ALWAYS THE SAME. I GET THE TRUCK BACK FROM A BRAKE REPAIR AND IT IS FINE FOR ONE TO TWO WEEKS. AFTER A SHORT WHILE, ONE TO TWO WEEKS, THE TRUCK STARTS TO MAKE A RATTLING NOISE FROM THE FRONT DRIVERS SIDE WHEEL WELL, THEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WILL GET SOFT. THEN THE INTERMITTENT BRAKE PULL STARTS ALL OVER AGAIN. I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY HELP THAT YOU COULD GIVE ME. I HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN THIS VEHICLE, AND WILL NOT DRIVE IT ANY MORE THAN I HAVE TO. I ALSO WILL NOT LET MY WIFE DRIVE IT OR LOAN IT OUT TO ANY FRIENDS. *AK
WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED AND APPLYING THE BRAKES, THE BRAKES ARE SOFT AND GO STRAIGHT TO THE FLOORBOARD. WHEN SLOWING DOWN THE PEDAL WILL SLOWLY GO TO THE FLOOR. CONSUMER HAS BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS WITH BRAKES FOR A WHILE, AND CAN'T DETEMINE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. *AK
BRAKE MALFUNCTION.
INTERMITTENTLY WHEN BRAKES ARE APPLIED THE PEDAL GOES TO THE FLOOR, RESULTING IN EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE. THE DEALER HAS REPAIRED THE VEHICLE TWICE PRIOR. CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER A THIRD TIME AND STATED THAT PEDAL GOES AND VEHICLE SLOWLY STOPS, MASTER CYLINDER AND FRONT BRAKE PADS WERE REPLACED, BUT PROBLEM STILL EXI…
Read full complaint
INTERMITTENTLY WHEN BRAKES ARE APPLIED THE PEDAL GOES TO THE FLOOR, RESULTING IN EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE. THE DEALER HAS REPAIRED THE VEHICLE TWICE PRIOR. CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER A THIRD TIME AND STATED THAT PEDAL GOES AND VEHICLE SLOWLY STOPS, MASTER CYLINDER AND FRONT BRAKE PADS WERE REPLACED, BUT PROBLEM STILL EXIST, CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO ANOTHER INDEPENDENT DEALER AND WAS TOLD THAT A PROBLEM DOES EXIST PROBABLY WITH THE HYDRAULIC FLUID FLOWING TO THE BACK BRAKES. *AK *TT
WHENEVER BRAKES ARE APPLIED THEY WOULD COAST VEHICLE, NOT STOPPING RIGHT AWAY. BRAKES WOULD NOT CATCH OR LOCK. PEDAL GOES TO FLOOR. NO PULSATING. *AK THE REAR BRAKES WERE ADJUSTED, CAUSING THE BRAKING ACTION TO BECOME WORSE, FRONT PADS WERE REPLACED AND LATER FOUND TO BE GLAZED AND BRINDLED. *SLC
WHILE DRIVING AND ATTEMPTED TO STOP, ANTI-LOCK BRAKES DID NOT CATCH, AND CONSUMER RAN INTO THE BACK OF ANOTHER AUTOMOBILE.DRIVER SUSTAINED SOME INJURIES. *AK
PREMATURE WEAR OF FRONT DISC BRAKE PADS.
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.