IllustrationFRAME RUSTING THROUGH AND CRACKED NEAR STARRING GEAR BOX AND STABILIZER BAR BUSHING MOUNTS.
1997 Dodge RAM 2500
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1997 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
90–25K
225–50K
1150–75K
1075–100K
13100–150K
15150K+
60 reports with mileage · 153 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 36 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Tires. 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.
9 crash reports14 fire reports6 injury reports
Unknown Or Other complaints
8 reportsTHE UPPER DASH COVER CRACKING IN MULTIPLE AREAS. THE CRACKS STARTED SMALL AT THE CORNERS OF THE DEFROST VENTS AND HAVE EXTENDED OVER THE ENTIRE AREA OF THE DASH. THE CRACKS ARE MORE SEVERE ON THE DRIVERS SIDE. *JB
DASH CRACKED IN MALTIPLE PLACES WITH PIECES FALLING OUT AND WINDSHILD CRACKING
THE CUP HOLDER IN MY 1997 DODGE RAM 3/4 TON PICKUP IS NOT PROPERLY DESIGNED. AS SUPPLIED THE CUP HOLDER HAS CUT OUTS ON THE SIDES. THE CUP HOLDER ALSO HAS A BASE PLATE THAT SUPPORTS THE BOTTOM OF THE CUP. THE BASE PLATE DOES NOT ALLOW CUPS TO FIT LOW ENOUGH INTO THE HOLDER TO ENABLE THE FRONT AND BACK PORTIONS OF THE CUP HOLD…
Read full complaint
THE CUP HOLDER IN MY 1997 DODGE RAM 3/4 TON PICKUP IS NOT PROPERLY DESIGNED. AS SUPPLIED THE CUP HOLDER HAS CUT OUTS ON THE SIDES. THE CUP HOLDER ALSO HAS A BASE PLATE THAT SUPPORTS THE BOTTOM OF THE CUP. THE BASE PLATE DOES NOT ALLOW CUPS TO FIT LOW ENOUGH INTO THE HOLDER TO ENABLE THE FRONT AND BACK PORTIONS OF THE CUP HOLDER TO MAKE GOOD CONTACT. TALLER CUPS LIKE THE TYPICAL FAST FOOD DRINK CUP IS ONLY SUPPORTED BY THE BOTTOM WITH NO SIDE SUPPORT OR JUST AROUND THE RING WHERE THE CUP CHANGES SIZES IN THE CASE OF THE LARGER CUPS. WITH THE MAJORITY OF COFFEE CUPS THE CUP HOLDER PROVIDES SUPPORT IN ONLY A COUPLE OF LOCATIONS. THE PROBLEM IS WHEN THE CUP HOLDER IS IN USE AS DESIGNED AND THE DRIVER MAKES A RIGHT OR LEFT TURN AT NORMAL DRIVING SPEEDS THE CUP WILL FLIP OUT OF THE CUP HOLDER SPILLING THE CONTENTS ON THE OCCUPANTS AND THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS OF THE VEHICLE. THIS HAS HAPPENED A NUMBER OF TIMES IN MY VEHICLE. I HAVE NOT HAD A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INVOLVING OTHER VEHICLES BUT HAVE SUSTAINED COMPREHENSIVE DAMAGE DUE TO A SOFT DRINK BEING SPILLED IN THE RADIO/CD/TAPE PLAYER. I HAVE NOT MET ANYONE YET WHO OWNS OR OWNED A DODGE PICKUP OF THIS BODY STYLE THAT HAS NOT EXPERIENCED THIS SAME PROBLEM. AN EMPLOYEE AT THE DEALERSHIP I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE FROM IN 1998 AGREED THAT THE CUP HOLDER WAS UNSAFE AND POORLY DESIGNED WHEN I BROUGHT THE VEHICLE IN THE FIRST TIME THIS HAPPENED TO ME RESULTING IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SOUND SYSTEM. WHEN I TRIED TO INFORM PEOPLE ABOUT THE PROBLEM THE DEALER THREATENED TO SUE ME. THE DODGE CORPORATION COMPLAINT HOT LINE INDICATED THAT I WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAD EVER CALLED AND COMPLAINED WHEN I CALLED IN THE SPRING OF 1999. *NLM
ON TRIP TO CAMPING GROUND IN SIERRA NEVADA MOUNTAINS, STARTED TO SMELL "HOT BRAKES" ALTHOUGH I HAD NOT BEEN USING THEM AT THAT POINT. THOUGHT BRAKE SHOE MAY BE DRAGGING OR THAT IT COULD BE ANOTHER MOTORIST. APPROACHED CAMP GROUND WITH GROWING CERTAINTY IT HAD TO BE MY TRUCK. AFTER PARKING IN CAMPING SPACE AND SHUTTING DOWN MO…
Read full complaint
ON TRIP TO CAMPING GROUND IN SIERRA NEVADA MOUNTAINS, STARTED TO SMELL "HOT BRAKES" ALTHOUGH I HAD NOT BEEN USING THEM AT THAT POINT. THOUGHT BRAKE SHOE MAY BE DRAGGING OR THAT IT COULD BE ANOTHER MOTORIST. APPROACHED CAMP GROUND WITH GROWING CERTAINTY IT HAD TO BE MY TRUCK. AFTER PARKING IN CAMPING SPACE AND SHUTTING DOWN MOTOR, I NOTICED SMOKE ISSUING FROM UNDER HOOD. OPENED HOOD TO INVESTIGATE AND FOUND FLAMES LICKING UP FIREWALL/TOE BOARD. INSPECTION REVEALED THAT FIREWALL INSULATION HAD FALLEN DOWN ONTO EXHAUST PIPE AND STARTED ON FIRE BETWEEN THE INSULATION AND THE TOE BOARD/FIREWALL. SOME EXHAUST "HEADER WRAP" WAS ON THE EXHAUST PIPE BUT IT HAD LOOSENED. THE AREA OF CONTACT WITH THE INSULATION WAS COVERED WITH THE "HEADER WRAP" BUT IT DID NO GOOD. I WAS UNABLE TO PUSH THE REMAINING INSULATION PIECE OUT OF CONTACT WITH THE EXHAUST SO THE RETURN TRIP HOME *TWO DAYS LATER) WAS VERY NERVE WRECKING. THE RECALL SERVICE WAS IMPROPERLY DONE. *JB ***DIMSII IVOQ ENTRY POSTED AFTER 12/12/02 CUT-OVER TO ARTEMIS***762404
THE BRAKE PROBLEM HAS BEEN ON GOING SINCE THE FIRST FEW MONTH OF SERVICE. THE FIRST BRAKE FAILURE WAS AT 9557 MILES, THE SECOND FAILURE WAS AT 23,744 MILES AND THE THIRD FAILURE OF THE BRAKES WAS AT 29, 875 MILES. THE BRAKES HAVE BEEN REPLACED, ROTORS GROUND,, NEW REAR AXLE SEALS, AND NEW CALIPERS, PADS,AND BRAKE SHOES HAVE B…
Read full complaint
THE BRAKE PROBLEM HAS BEEN ON GOING SINCE THE FIRST FEW MONTH OF SERVICE. THE FIRST BRAKE FAILURE WAS AT 9557 MILES, THE SECOND FAILURE WAS AT 23,744 MILES AND THE THIRD FAILURE OF THE BRAKES WAS AT 29, 875 MILES. THE BRAKES HAVE BEEN REPLACED, ROTORS GROUND,, NEW REAR AXLE SEALS, AND NEW CALIPERS, PADS,AND BRAKE SHOES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. THE PROBLEM STILL EXISTS AND THE DEALER IN TURLOCK AUTO CENTER, TURLOCK, CA. IS ORDERING NEW PARTS AGAIN MAKING THE FOURTH BRAKES ON THIS PICKUP INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL ONES. *AK
BRAKES OVERHEAT AND PULL HARD CONTINUALLY.
RECALL COMPONENT FAILURE PRIOR TO RECALL NOTICE RESULTING IN FIRE, RECALL REPAIRS AFTER INCIDENT WERE NOT PERFORMED PROPERLY (97V-126). MJS
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.