[cDy]

The chart below shows the charging data for the R135 ZE50 taken from New ZOE - Driving Range, Battery & Charging - Renault UK compared to the data previously published by Renault for the R90 ZE40 and Q90 ZE40 in 2017, when we bought our R90. I had the old data from when deciding whether to buy a Q90 or R90 and it took 10 minutes to add the R135 data.

It implies that the R135 ZE50 charges slower than the R90 ZE40! Except that it can charge on CCS as well. However, I guess that this is likely to be experimental errors, such as the battery temperature. I'd treat all the data with a pinch of salt.

The R135 is supposed to reach 50kWh on 50kW CCS in about the same time that the Q90 was supposed to reach 40kWh on 43kW AC. The R135 is charging at about 40kW up to 50% SOC on 50kW CCS, which is slower than the data provided by Fastned. It slows to 25kW above 80% SOC.

Edit: legend corrected. Thanks to @80698.

 

[80698]

I assume the R90 and Q90 are mixed up on this graph too. The Q90 definitely doesn't charge quicker than a R90 at 7kW, and the R model was supposedly tested at 43kW charging which it doesn't even support, only the Q does, which wasn't tested.

 

[dk6780]

Anyone care toexplain why the ZE50 R135 is so much slower (and presumably less efficient) than the ZE40 R90 on AC? Does this imply that to release more power from the motor results in less efficiency at AC conversion?

 

[cah197]

Anyone care toexplain why the ZE50 R135 is so much slower (and presumably less efficient) than the ZE40 R90 on AC? Does this imply that to release more power from the motor results in less efficiency at AC conversion?

Probably due to heat limits so they gave it a leaner charging rate.

Not sure if it would be different in cold weather.

 

[cDy]

Anyone care toexplain why the ZE50 R135 is so much slower (and presumably less efficient) than the ZE40 R90 on AC? Does this imply that to release more power from the motor results in less efficiency at AC conversion?

I don't think that the differences are real. The current site also gives data for the R110, but it is identical to that provided for the R135. The differences are of the order that you would expect from fairly simple changes in the measurement situation - in particular the battery temperature. They are about the same size as that between the two charging charts that Fastned has released for the ZE50. IIRC, the first one showed a good charging rate up to over 60%, but the current one is far less encouraging. They must both, I assume, be from real charging runs, and we call know they can vary a lot.

 

[ThudnBlundr]

Don't the 'new' ZE40 and ZE50 share an identical battery, just with different software-restricted capacities? That would explain why they both charge at the same speed.

 

[cah197]

Don't the 'new' ZE40 and ZE50 share an identical battery, just with different software-restricted capacities? That would explain why they both charge at the same speed.

I don't know of a 'new' ZE40.

The ZE50 has a bigger battery for sure.

 

[ThudnBlundr]

I can't find the article now, but it was posted on this forum a while ago. It said that the new ZE40 and ZE50 both share an identical capacity battery, with the former having higher top and and bottom buffers. It also said it should make the new ZE40 have even lower battery degradation.

 

[WonkoTheSaneUK]

There were rumours of a "new ZE40" (Visually identical to ZE50) being made available in some markets a while ago.
Haven't heard anything more on it since the car was launched in the UK last year.