2025 1500 Ram SST Issues

UPDATE: Ram submitted their evidence for the case. They are lying about the dates and timelines for my truck trying to get out of lemon lawing my truck. They claim I brought it in December 24th and it was fixed January 28th with no additional issues. I have submitted proof that after I took it there December 23rd it wasn't moved again until their first repair attempt January 16th. Also, if I goty truck back in January, why was Ram corporate trying to figure out when I would get my truck back in February?

Ram is lying and dishonest about this situation. I can't believe the lengths they are going through to try and prevent the truck from being a lemon


View attachment 262501View attachment 262502

None of this is a mechanical or maintenance issue and frankly you are over sharing PII. Your lawyer would not approve. Call the news like you did last time and make a spectacle is probably the next best thing to do. All that said, you hate the truck and good luck with the next vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Have you manually confirmed that it is actually that bad?
When my truck broke December 19th they said they wouldn't be able to fix it until at least January 31st. Talking to Ram corporate they said the dealership was still backed up and I would have to wait for an appointment. I'm not scheduling anything until after Arbitration at this point. Im tired of fighting with them over everything and I just want to be done with this dealership and truck. If they make me keep it I will keep making appointments until it's fixed
 
When my truck broke December 19th they said they wouldn't be able to fix it until at least January 31st. Talking to Ram corporate they said the dealership was still backed up and I would have to wait for an appointment. I'm not scheduling anything until after Arbitration at this point. Im tired of fighting with them over everything and I just want to be done with this dealership and truck. If they make me keep it I will keep making appointments until it's fixed

So the mpg issue was a fluke or no? I am curious what app that is, haven’t owned a Stellantis product newer than 2016.
 
One thing that stands out to me, is that OP can use the telemetry data as proof of his case. Usually that was reserved only for the manufacturers and dealers. So if your car is connected to a similar service and you have a warranty issues, I would start taking screenshot of the location and distance drive as OP smartly did. Make the tech work on our side for once.
 
When my truck broke December 19th they said they wouldn't be able to fix it until at least January 31st. Talking to Ram corporate they said the dealership was still backed up and I would have to wait for an appointment. I'm not scheduling anything until after Arbitration at this point. Im tired of fighting with them over everything and I just want to be done with this dealership and truck. If they make me keep it I will keep making appointments until it's fixed
Totally get your frustration, was just wondering if you'd actually confirmed if the mileage is as bad as the read out seems to think it is. Sounds like you are past worrying about that at this juncture.
 
Totally get your frustration, was just wondering if you'd actually confirmed if the mileage is as bad as the read out seems to think it is. Sounds like you are past worrying about that at this juncture.
Sorry I may have misunderstood the context. I got it back the second time empty so I put fresh 91 octane ethanol free fuel in it. The app says it actually went down. The dashboard is saying 14.7 but my manual calculation is 17.61. I was still doing better pulling my boat before the issues than I am with this empty truck commuting on the highway too and from work.

I'm hoping since Ram lied about the dates in and out along with lying about miles in and out that the panel of arbitrators verdict will be fore since their own stories don't add up and I submitted telemetry data as proof of the contrary. I also emailed my arbitrator and brought to her attention the falsified dates and miles to deceive the panel for their fraudulent submission. They review February 18th and have up to 7 days after that to render their decision.
 
Is it possible that your low fuel economy could have been caused by the dealer idling the truck for an extended time trying unsuccessfully to burp the cooling system?
I have only calculated fuel economy after getting it back. I have a 90 miles round trip commute that's 99.9% highway. A total of 5 stop signs and 8 red lights on the entire 90 miles. I used to get 22.5 MPG doing that commute before I brought it in for repairs.


I did notice it took 3 days for the start stop to work as it kept saying it was charging the batteries. My fuel economy did go up after it decided the batteries were charged. At this point we're just hoping to get it repurchased. We have owned the 2025 Ram for 132 days and over 46 of those days the truck has been broken. We are just ready to move on. By the time we got it back some of our free trials had already ended.
 
UPDATE: RAM Cares actually cares now that I emailed the CEO of Ram trucks and called them out over submitting fraudulent documents to Arbitration.


1000001651.webp
 
There is also a federal law called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and it states repair must be made in a reasonable amount of time otherwise the have defaulted on their warranty obligation. If or when it gets to 40 days then it's a lemon based just off loss of use. But I'm entitled to get it repurchased und the federal law for repairs taking so long.
From what I've read the Moss Magnuson warranty act is strictly for keeping dealerships from stating that you have to use their specific oil or wipers. As long as a product meets manufacturers specifications they can't deny warranties.
 
From what I've read the Moss Magnuson warranty act is strictly for keeping dealerships from stating that you have to use their specific oil or wipers. As long as a product meets manufacturers specifications they can't deny warranties.
Title 15 U.S. Code, chapter 50, Section 2301, Requires warranty repairs be made in a reasonable amount of time without undue delay to the consumer. Otherwise the product should be replaced or refunded. This is the federal lemon law that is good for the entirety of the vehicle warranty not just specific circumstances per state law.
 
From what I've read the Moss Magnuson warranty act is strictly for keeping dealerships from stating that you have to use their specific oil or wipers. As long as a product meets manufacturers specifications they can't deny warranties.

15 USC Ch. 50: CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTIES
From Title 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE
CHAPTER 50—CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTIES
Sec.
2301.Definitions.
2302.Rules governing contents of warranties.
2303.Designation of written warranties.
2304.Federal minimum standards for warranties.
2305.Full and limited warranting of a consumer product.
2306.Service contracts; rules for full, clear and conspicuous disclosure of terms and conditions; addition to or in lieu of written warranty.
2307.Designation of representatives by warrantor to perform duties under written or implied warranty.
2308.Implied warranties.
2309.Procedures applicable to promulgation of rules by Commission.
2310.Remedies in consumer disputes.
2311.Applicability to other laws.
2312.Effective dates.


§2301. Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter:

(1) The term "consumer product" means any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed).

(2) The term "Commission" means the Federal Trade Commission.

(3) The term "consumer" means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty (or service contract) or under applicable State law to enforce against the warrantor (or service contractor) the obligations of the warranty (or service contract).

(4) The term "supplier" means any person engaged in the business of making a consumer product directly or indirectly available to consumers.

(5) The term "warrantor" means any supplier or other person who gives or offers to give a written warranty or who is or may be obligated under an implied warranty.

(6) The term "written warranty" means—

(A) any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a supplier to a buyer which relates to the nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or promises that such material or workmanship is defect free or will meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time, or

(B) any undertaking in writing in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product to refund, repair, replace, or take other remedial action with respect to such product in the event that such product fails to meet the specifications set forth in the undertaking,


which written affirmation, promise, or undertaking becomes part of the basis of the bargain between a supplier and a buyer for purposes other than resale of such product.

(7) The term "implied warranty" means an implied warranty arising under State law (as modified by sections 2308 and 2304(a) of this title) in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product.

(8) The term "service contract" means a contract in writing to perform, over a fixed period of time or for a specified duration, services relating to the maintenance or repair (or both) of a consumer product.

(9) The term "reasonable and necessary maintenance" consists of those operations (A) which the consumer reasonably can be expected to perform or have performed and (B) which are necessary to keep any consumer product performing its intended function and operating at a reasonable level of performance.

(10) The term "remedy" means whichever of the following actions the warrantor elects:

(A) repair,

(B) replacement, or

(C) refund;


except that the warrantor may not elect refund unless (i) the warrantor is unable to provide replacement and repair is not commercially practicable or cannot be timely made, or (ii) the consumer is willing to accept such refund.

(11) The term "replacement" means furnishing a new consumer product which is identical or reasonably equivalent to the warranted consumer product.

(12) The term "refund" means refunding the actual purchase price (less reasonable depreciation based on actual use where permitted by rules of the Commission).

(13) The term "distributed in commerce" means sold in commerce, introduced or delivered for introduction into commerce, or held for sale or distribution after introduction into commerce.

(14) The term "commerce" means trade, traffic, commerce, or transportation—

(A) between a place in a State and any place outside thereof, or

(B) which affects trade, traffic, commerce, or transportation described in subparagraph (A).


(15) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Canal Zone, or American Samoa. The term "State law" includes a law of the United States applicable only to the District of Columbia or only to a territory or possession of the United States; and the term "Federal law" excludes any State law.

(Pub. L. 93–637, title I, §101, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2183.)
 
Title 15 U.S. Code, chapter 50, Section 2301, Requires warranty repairs be made in a reasonable amount of time without undue delay to the consumer. Otherwise the product should be replaced or refunded. This is the federal lemon law that is good for the entirety of the vehicle warranty not just specific circumstances per state law.
As with most of the other provisions of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, you have to sue in Federal Civil Court on your dime to enforce it. The FTC rarely gets involved with enforcement actions at the individual level.
 
As with most of the other provisions of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, you have to sue in Federal Civil Court on your dime to enforce it. The FTC rarely gets involved with enforcement actions at the individual level.
There is a provision that reasonable costs are covered by the manufacturer if you win.
 
Back
Top Bottom