I read earlier that zinc chloride has an ionic bond?

Moin,

therefore there is (at least for school chemistry) two Rules of thumb to assess the binding character of connections.

The first rule of thumb is:

• Metallic and non-metallic elements lead to ion connections with ion bonds.
• Two non-metallic elements lead to molecules with (more or less strongly polar) atomic bonds.

The second rule of thumb is:

• An EN difference between 0.0 and 0.4 gives a nonpolar atomic bond.
• An EN difference between 0.5 and 1.7 results in an increasingly polarizing atomic bond.
• An EN difference greater than 1.7 gives an ion bond.

With these two concepts, you get relatively good statements about the actual binding conditions, with both concepts alone being able to lead to contradictory assessments.

You have already mentioned a contradiction: The EN difference between the binding partners in zinc chloride is “only” (3.66 – 1.16 =) 1.5 and the substance should therefore have strongly polar atomic bonds.
Here, however, the other rule of thumb: zinc (a metal) and chlorine (a non-metal) lead to ion compounds with ion bonds…

Another example of such a contradiction would be hydrogen fluoride (HF). The en-difference of these two binding partners is (4.00 – 2.2 =) 1.8. That should actually be an ionic bond. In fact, however, these are molecules with very strongly polar atomic bonds. Here, too, a look at the other concept helps: hydrogen (a non-metal) and fluorine (also a non-metal) now connect to molecules with (more or less strongly polar) atomic bonds.

The best thing is to guess both rule concepts to decide the character of a connection.

LG from the Waterkant