2024 Braun Ram Promaster Problems
Owner-reported complaints filed with NHTSA, grouped by component
Data refreshed
What this page shows
Everything below is an owner-reported complaint submitted to NHTSA about the 2024 Braun Ram Promaster, grouped by the component NHTSA recorded on the report. These are not confirmed defects, and they are not recalls. NHTSA does not verify most reports before publishing them, and a category with more reports in it is not evidence that a part is defective.
Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.
Reports by component
Ranked by how many owner reports name each component category
- Body & structure1100.0%
Percentages are of component mentions. A single complaint can name more than one component, so these do not sum to the total complaint count.
Each component in detail
What the reports in each category say, in the owners' own words
Body & structure
Reports naming the vehicle structure, frame, body panels, doors, hood and trim.
From owner reports, verbatim
On Thursday, [XXX], I took my vehicle to the authorized dealership Alberic Chrysler Jeep Dodge, located on Kennedy Avenue in San Juan, Puerto Rico, for routine maintenance. While handling the vehicle, the service personnel lifted it using the shop's lift equipment, raising it all the way to the ceiling, which caused severe structural damage to the vehicle's roof. The dealership contacted the Puerto Rico State Police, who filed report number [XXX]. Additionally, I was asked to complete a written damage claim at the dealership. The vehicle was under full manufacturer's warranty at the time of the incident. However, the structural damage has now compromised the vehicle's integrity, specifically: - The rear doors became misaligned. - The roof suffered a visible crack, which exposed the interior of the vehicle to weather conditions. - The damage potentially affects warranty coverage, especially related to corrosion protection. We requested that the dealership retain the vehicle on-site to allow for inspection by the manufacturer's technical team. The dealership refused to do so unless I agreed to pay a $25 daily storage fee. We also requested substitute transportation, which they denied. Additionally, according to the NHTSA database, this vehicle currently has an open safety recall. I was never informed of this recall by the dealership at the time of the maintenance appointment, which is a serious failure in the dealership's responsibility to notify the owner and address potential safety risks. The vehicle is used for both personal and professional transportation, and at the time of the incident, it had 8,402 miles. This incident raises significant safety concerns regarding the vehicle's structural integrity, the open recall, and the dealership's handling of the matter. I respectfully request NHTSA's assistance in investigating this situation to ensure that both the safety standards and consumer protections are upheld. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Too few reports in this category for a page of its own — they appear in the full complaint list.
Higher-selling and older vehicles accumulate more reports. Counts are not failure rates and are not directly comparable between vehicles that sold in very different numbers.
Elsewhere on this vehicle
Data sources
- NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation — owner-reported complaints and the components recorded on them
Data on this page last refreshed .