Volkswagen ID.3 Review 2025
This is Volkswagen's mainstream electric family hatch. First deliveries of the ID.3 only started in late 2020, but even so it was given an early facelift at the beginning of 2023. Which... it rather needed.
Why? Well, firstly because having arrived among the vanguard of hatches this size, it inevitably found itself surrounded by newer rivals stealing some of its thunder. And second, because the original ID.3 just wasn't quite Volkswagen enough. It didn't have the necessary feeling of interior quality. Plus, it was in many ways quirky or just plain irritating. The facelift was supposedly the fix.
Advertisement - Page continues below
Those new hatchback rivals? The Renault Megane electric, MG4, Vauxhall Astra Electric and Peugeot e-308. Plus the Cupra Born on the same platform as the ID.3. You might also be cross-shopping with any number of compact-ish electric crossovers such as the Kia EV3, Volvo EX30, Hyundai Kona Electric or anything from the Stellantis stable. Fiat 600e, anyone? WHAT CHANGES DID VW MAKE FOR THE FACELIFT?
The 2023 update made the ID.3 slightly less oddball. VW pitched the first generation as the car to pick up the baton from the Golf. But it wasn't that. Whereas a Golf always feels comfortingly conventional, the ID.3 looked a bit radical and its operation took a bit of learning. You could imagine people taking half an hour's headscratching before they managed to drive a rentacar ID out of the airport multi-storey.
The bonnet now looks longer, because its old half-black split paint treatment has gone. So the ID.3 looks more like a car and less like a future spacepod. Changes to the front bumper make it look wider as well as helping some air slip past the wheels more easily. The front wings look longer because they're no longer broken up by a badge plaque. The tail lights are wider and more detailed.
The original ID.3 was sparse inside, with acres of angular and hard-surfaced plastics. Maybe this was VW telling us we'd arrived in a new world. Maybe it couldn't afford soft mouldings in the aftermath of the dieselgate scandal.
Advertisement - Page continues below
But whatever, VW's customers rose up with one voice: if this was supposed to replace the Golf, they wanted the same sense of premium quality please. VW has now acquiesced. The dash and doors are now clad in soft-touch and stitched surfaces. And much nicer it is in here too.
Like the furniture, the original screens and software felt like they'd been done in a rush. Software updates have improved the screen systems. Although perhaps not enough. AND WHAT'S THE SAME?
It's a purpose-built electric platform. Unusually, it's rear-drive, the motor and its inverter being tucked under the boot floor. 'Rear-engined like a Beetle,' as they say in Wolfsburg.
This means a long wheelbase, with the slab battery tucked under the passenger cell. Thus the roof is taller than you'd expect. Still, it's a roomy family car, more so than a Megane or electric Astra, thanks to better leg space for the back passengers.
RWD means a tightish turning circle, but it also means the regenerative braking is fairly meek, to avoid the danger of rear-wheel skids on slippery surfaces. That's why FWD or AWD e-cars can extract more regeneration and have the potential to be more efficient in variable-speed driving. What are the specs?
They've changed a bit over the years too, but at the time of writing in mid-2025 the useable battery sizes are 52kWh (ID.3 Pure), 59kWh (ID.3 Pro) and 79kWh (ID.3 Pro S or the hotter GTX). The entry level Pure cars get a 168bhp motor, while the Pro and Pro S both get 201bhp. The sporty GTX Performance gets a hefty 322bhp, and we've gone into more detail on that particular car here.
We'll drop the hot hatch and focus mostly on the standard ID.3 here, so it's the Pro that's the quickest of the bunch. That'll do 0-62mph in 7.6 seconds compared to the 8.2 seconds of the less powerful Pure and the heavier Pro S. Although frankly, compared with the Renault Megane all ID.3s are too heavy. The biggest battery Pro S just sneaks under two tonnes.
The WLTP range figures are 241 miles for the Pure, 269 miles for the Pro and an impressive 351 miles for Pro S. For extra info on range, charging and energy consumption, click through to the 'Buying' tab of this review. HOW IS IT TO DRIVE?
A Golf is comfy and refined, but also has a gently amusing side. You might expect the ID.3 to be similar, especially as rear-drive has the potential to add a little cheekiness.
But no. VW has doubled down on the comfort and refinement. It's stable, smooth-riding and wonderfully quiet – not just in its absence of engine sound of course, but also the limo-like hush of tyres, suspension and wind.
It's stable, relaxed and precise in its steering, accelerator and brakes. But there's no feedback or engagement. The Megane, MG4 and Astra are all more fun. For more details click the 'Driving' tab.
Want to know what the best electric cars are? Click here for the top 20
Volkswagen
107KW Life Pro 62kWh 5dr Auto
£30,880
'More fun than a crossover, roomy, comfortable, efficient and importantly, it's got character and is likeable'
Although the Nissan Leaf was a decade ahead of it, the ID.3 was quite a radical car for VW. The shape, software and interior were admirably brave, but in hindsight maybe a bit too much. It was a massive engineering effort, but shoved on sale in a tearing rush as an atonement for dieselgate. The cutting of corners – cheap cabin furniture and rough-edged software – was painfully obvious.
The facelifted car's control systems can still be infuriating, but their actual logic and graphics have been steadily improving with OTA software updates.
The facelift addresses the too-radical-for-some exterior, and bare cabin. It's a nice place to sit now.
The ID.3's best qualities haven't been messed with. It's roomy, quiet, comfortable and soothing. It's efficient and has a good range. It's satisfying to drive, just not much fun for a hatchback. Albeit more fun than the crossovers you might be cross-shopping with.
All of which gives it a definite character and likeability among an increasingly busy lineup of rivals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper.
Reuters
42 minutes ago
- Reuters
X plays up blue checkmark disclaimer to stave off possible EU fine, source says
BRUSSELS, June 6 (Reuters) - Elon Musk's social media company X has highlighted a disclaimer to its blue checkmark in an attempt to head off a possible hefty fine from EU antitrust regulators, a person familiar with the matter said. The European Commission in July last year charged X with deceiving users, saying that the blue checkmark does not correspond to industry practices and that anyone can pay to get a "verified" status. The blue checkmark had previously indicated that an account belonged to a public figure whose identity was verified but Musk changed it to indicate it belonged to a paid subscriber after acquiring X in 2022. X has not admitted wrongdoing and the prominent display of the blue checkmark disclaimer is not part of any settlement proposal with the EU tech enforcer, the person said. The prominent display started a week ago. The Commission said it took note of X's announcement. "Our investigation related to the blue checkmark is ongoing," a spokesperson said. X did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. The EU probe is under the Digital Services Act which requires large online platforms to do more to tackle illegal and harmful content or risk fines as much as 6% of their global annual revenue. Bloomberg was the first to report on the blue checkmark disclaimer.
Reuters
43 minutes ago
- Reuters
Return of Ukraine wheat and barley curbs gives small boost to EU farmers
PARIS/KYIV, June 6 (Reuters) - European farmers welcomed the European Union's re-introduction of quotas on Friday for Ukrainian wheat and barley as a small boost to their market, but they still face global price competition as Ukraine tries to export elsewhere. The European Union waived duties and quotas on Ukrainian agricultural products following Russia's full-scale invasion three years ago. It later capped volumes on some Ukrainian produce, including sugar, following an outcry from farmers over the price competition it posed. It did not limit volumes of wheat and barley, however, and more than 4 million metric tons of Ukrainian wheat were imported into the EU since the start of the 2024/25 season last July. Friday's expiry of the waivers means the EU has restored a pre-war regime of trade quotas, pending the conclusion of a new longer-term trade deal with Kyiv. The re-establishment of the quotas was "a crucial first step" towards rebalancing the market, French wheat farmers' union AGPB said in a statement. It reinstates a duty-free quota of 1 million tons annually for wheat and 350,000 tons for barley. Adjusted for the seven months left in 2025, that represents about 583,000 tons of wheat and 204,000 tons of barley available for the rest of the year. European farmers, also concerned by a planned EU deal with South America's Mercosur bloc, blame Ukrainian competition for pushing prices below their production costs, which have also been inflated by higher energy and fertiliser bills since the war. The quotas should shift Ukraine's exports away from Europe and keep more EU wheat at home, though the price benefit for farmers may be limited, traders said. One trader, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Ukrainian grain that is not shipped into the EU will still find its way to the global market. Reduced access to the massive EU market was a setback for Ukraine, but it should be able to pivot more towards North Africa and Southeast Asia, First Deputy Farm Minister Taras Vysotskiy told reporters. "We were there in 2021, and logistically it is not difficult. The question is the price," he said. The EU and Ukraine, meanwhile, are working on a broader trade accord. The EU's agriculture commissioner told Reuters the future deal would set quotas somewhere between current levels and the waivers. Ukraine's trade representative Taras Kachka flagged the risk of market tensions. "There will be no problems with corn supplies, but there are issues with wheat and barley, but we hope to reach acceptable volumes," he told a grain conference in Kyiv on Friday. Ukrainian corn (maize) is subject to a pre-war 650,000 ton annual quota from Friday. But unlike wheat and barley, no impact is expected since the EU has a general zero tariff on corn.
