IllustrationSTRONG SMELL IN CAB SEEMINGLY ONLY AT NIGHT. GOT PULLED OVER FOR NO TAIL OR RUNNING LIGHTS BEHIND THE CAB. THEY WERE WORKING EARLIER. HEADLIGHT SWITCH WAS MELTING CAUSING NASTY SMELL WHICH RESULTED IN A BAD HEADACHE. *JB
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
Exterior Lighting complaints
25 reportsTL* - THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH HAS BURNED OUT TWICE WITHIN THE LAST YEAR. THE DEALER HAS TOLD THE CONTACT THAT THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH, BUT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN. THE DEALER TOLD THE CONTACT THAT THE REASON HE HAS TO REPLACE THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH W…
Read full complaint
TL* - THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH HAS BURNED OUT TWICE WITHIN THE LAST YEAR. THE DEALER HAS TOLD THE CONTACT THAT THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH, BUT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN. THE DEALER TOLD THE CONTACT THAT THE REASON HE HAS TO REPLACE THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH WAS BECAUSE HE TOWED A TRAILER. THE CONTACT STATED WEATHER AND ROAD CONDITIONS WERE NOT A FACTOR IN THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT REPLACED THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH HIMSELF. THE WIRING WAS MELTED TO THE SWITCH. *AK
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH FOR 30 MINUTES ON THE HIGHWAY, HEAT AND A BURNING SMELL WAS NOTICED COMING FROM THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. ON INSPECTION, THE PROBLEM WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE EXTERIOR HEADLIGHT SWITCH. THE SWITCH WAS HOT TO THE TOUCH AND A BURNED RUBBER SMELL WAS NOTICEABLE. THE SERVICE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH FOR 30 MINUTES ON THE HIGHWAY, HEAT AND A BURNING SMELL WAS NOTICED COMING FROM THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. ON INSPECTION, THE PROBLEM WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE EXTERIOR HEADLIGHT SWITCH. THE SWITCH WAS HOT TO THE TOUCH AND A BURNED RUBBER SMELL WAS NOTICEABLE. THE SERVICE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED, AND RECOMMENDED TO TAKE THE VEHICLE IN FOR REPAIR AS THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THE EXTERIOR LIGHT; HEADLIGHT SWITCH (99V024000). WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE SERVICE DEALER, IT WAS DISCOVERED THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED.
BOTH FRONT HEADLIGHTS PLASTIC LENS BECAME DISCOLORED, AND CAUSED POOR VISIBILITY WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT. CONSUMER WAS CONCERNED THAT THIS MAY OBSTRUCT CONSUMER'S VISION AND RESULT IN A VEHICLE CRASH. DEALER WAS NOTIFIED, AND INFORMED CONSUMER THAT PARTS WERE NOT COVERED UNDER A MANUFACTURER'S RECALL.*AK *BF *NM
TAIL LIGHTS FAILED WITHOUT WARNING. *AK THE DEALER REPLACED THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH AND REWIRED THE CONNECTOR. RECALL# 99V024000 WHICH PERTAINED TO 3500 SERIES BUILT THROUGH OCTOBER 21, 1996. THE CONSUMERS VEHICLE WAS BUILT 3 DAYS LATER AND DISPLAYED THE SAME PROBLEM. A REPAIR KIT WAS INSTALLED. *SC *JB
BURNING SMELL, BLINKING OF HEADLIGHTS AND THEN HEADLIGHT FAILURE WHILE ON INTERSTATE. TOOK TO MECHANIC WHO FOUND A RECALL AND ADVISED ME TO CALL A DODGE DEALER. DODGE DEALER SAID THERE WAS NO RECALL FOR THAT PARTICULAR VEHICLE. CALLED DAIMLER/CHRYSLER ASSISTANCE CENTER WHO SAID THERE WAS NO RECALL FOR THAT PARTICULAR VEHICLE …
Read full complaint
BURNING SMELL, BLINKING OF HEADLIGHTS AND THEN HEADLIGHT FAILURE WHILE ON INTERSTATE. TOOK TO MECHANIC WHO FOUND A RECALL AND ADVISED ME TO CALL A DODGE DEALER. DODGE DEALER SAID THERE WAS NO RECALL FOR THAT PARTICULAR VEHICLE. CALLED DAIMLER/CHRYSLER ASSISTANCE CENTER WHO SAID THERE WAS NO RECALL FOR THAT PARTICULAR VEHICLE BY VIN NUMBER. MECHANIC IN TOWN WILL BE FIXING. VEHICLE HAS TRAILER TOW PACKAGE.*AK
THE SWITCH FOR THE EXTERIOR LIGHTING MELTED AND CAUSED A BURNING SMELL. *NLM
VEHICLE'S HEADLAMP SWITCH MELTED WHILE DRIVING, RESULTED IN THE HEADLIGHTS BECOMING INOPERATIVE. *MR TURN SIGNALS, RUNNING LIGHTS LEFT BRAKE LIGHT WERE INOPERATIVE. ALL LIGHTS WORKED EXCEPT RUNNING LIGHTS WHEN TRAILER HOOKED UP. DEALER FOUND CORRODED SOCKET AND HEADLAMP SWITCH WIRING BURNT. REPLACED SOCKET AND REPLACED HEAD…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE'S HEADLAMP SWITCH MELTED WHILE DRIVING, RESULTED IN THE HEADLIGHTS BECOMING INOPERATIVE. *MR TURN SIGNALS, RUNNING LIGHTS LEFT BRAKE LIGHT WERE INOPERATIVE. ALL LIGHTS WORKED EXCEPT RUNNING LIGHTS WHEN TRAILER HOOKED UP. DEALER FOUND CORRODED SOCKET AND HEADLAMP SWITCH WIRING BURNT. REPLACED SOCKET AND REPLACED HEADLAMP SWITCH AND REPLACED BURNT WIRING. THERE WAS A RECALL HOWEVER VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED. *TT
A WIRE IN DASHBOARD LIGHTS OVERHEATED AND MELTED LIGHT SWITCH. SMOKE CAME INTO THE CAB. DEALER HAS BEEN CONTACTED. *AK THERE IS A RECALL CAMPAIGN 99V02400 TO REPLACE HEADLIGHT SWITCH/RELAY. *TT
CONSUMER BROUGHT VEHICLE IN FOR RECALL #819 REPAIR, DEALER REPLACED HEADLIGHT SWITCH, INSTALLED OVERLAY HARNESS AND REPLACED 4 BURNT WIRES IN CONNECTOR, HOWEVER, AFTER RECALL REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED CONSUMER HAD NO TAIL LIGHTS, CONSUMER WAS TOLD BY ANOTHER MECHANIC THAT HEAD LIGHT SWITCH HAD NOT BEEN REPLACED AS REQUIRED BY RECAL…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER BROUGHT VEHICLE IN FOR RECALL #819 REPAIR, DEALER REPLACED HEADLIGHT SWITCH, INSTALLED OVERLAY HARNESS AND REPLACED 4 BURNT WIRES IN CONNECTOR, HOWEVER, AFTER RECALL REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED CONSUMER HAD NO TAIL LIGHTS, CONSUMER WAS TOLD BY ANOTHER MECHANIC THAT HEAD LIGHT SWITCH HAD NOT BEEN REPLACED AS REQUIRED BY RECALL. *TT
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.