The automotive aftermarket is flooded with gadgets promising miraculous improvements to your car’s performance and fuel efficiency. Among these, the “Nitro OBD2” chip tuning box stands out with bold claims of increased horsepower and torque simply by plugging it into your car’s OBD2 port. Advertised as a revolutionary performance enhancer, skepticism surrounds its actual effectiveness. Many online testimonials label it as a complete scam, while others claim noticeable improvements. Intrigued by these conflicting reports and our expertise in automotive diagnostics at obd2global.com, we decided to delve deeper. We purchased a Nitro OBD2 device to reverse engineer it and uncover the truth behind its promises.
Diving into the Nitro OBD2 Dongle
Our journey began with a fascination for automotive security and the vast landscape of potential attack vectors within modern vehicles. Our team has extensive experience playing with in-car networks, particularly the CAN bus, exploring its vulnerabilities and capabilities. This led us to investigate consumer-grade OBD2 devices like the Nitro OBD2, marketed to everyday drivers seeking performance gains or fuel savings.
A friend’s query about the Nitro OBD2’s legitimacy sparked our investigation. Promising engine reprogramming based on driving habits for fuel economy and power boosts, it sounded too good to be true. We acquired a unit from Amazon and initiated a reverse engineering process to determine if it lived up to the hype. Unable to provide a detailed review on Amazon, we chose to publish our findings here, offering a comprehensive analysis for those considering this device.
PCB Examination: What’s Inside the Box?
Before even considering plugging the Nitro OBD2 into a vehicle, our first step was to examine its internal components. Opening the dongle revealed a standard OBD2 connector layout, as expected. The pinout is crucial for understanding how the device interfaces with a car’s systems.
Image alt text: OBD2 connector pinout diagram for Nitro OBD2 dongle, highlighting pin assignments for CAN High, CAN Low, J1850, ISO 9141-2, power, and ground.
Initial inspection confirmed that the essential pins for CAN High (CANH) and CAN Low (CANL) communication were indeed connected – a basic requirement for any device claiming to interact with a car’s engine control unit (ECU) via the CAN bus. Further examination of the circuit board revealed that the active pins were associated with CAN bus, J1850 bus, and ISO 9141-2 protocols. However, closer scrutiny of the circuit board unveiled a simpler reality.
Image alt text: Detailed view of the Nitro OBD2 circuit board showing minimal components, including a microcontroller chip, LEDs, and basic power circuitry, indicating a lack of complex engine tuning capabilities.
Analyzing the PCB layout, we identified only the fundamental components:
- A basic power circuit to power the device.
- A push button, likely for reset or basic function.
- A single microcontroller chip, the brains of the operation.
- Three LEDs, presumably for visual feedback.
Notably absent was a dedicated CAN transceiver chip. This crucial component is essential for any device intended to transmit and receive data on the CAN bus. Its absence suggested one of two possibilities: either the microcontroller somehow integrated a CAN transceiver, or, more likely, the device lacked genuine CAN communication capabilities altogether. The advertised functions of understanding car operation, retrieving engine state, and reprogramming ECUs seemed highly improbable with such a rudimentary circuit board, especially crammed into a single SOP-8 package chip. Skepticism began to mount significantly at this stage.
CAN Bus Communication Analysis: Does Nitro OBD2 Talk to Your Car?
To ascertain if the Nitro OBD2 genuinely interacts with a vehicle’s systems, we proceeded to CAN bus analysis. The most straightforward method was to monitor CAN bus traffic before and after plugging in the device to detect any transmissions originating from the Nitro OBD2.
Test Setup
For our experiment, we used a 2012 diesel Suzuki Swift, a vehicle commonly used for OBD2 diagnostics with tools like ELM327 and software like Torque. This car provides accessible engine data and allows for error code resets, making it suitable for testing OBD2 devices.
Our setup involved recording all CAN messages transmitted on the OBD port using a Raspberry Pi equipped with a PiCAN2 shield. We utilized a Python script based on python-socketcan-monitor to capture data from the socket-CAN interface. This allowed us to log all CAN bus activity.
To validate our setup, we also employed a PicoScope to examine the CAN signals directly. As anticipated, we observed clear CAN_H and CAN_L signals, confirming a functional CAN bus in the test vehicle.
Image alt text: Oscilloscope capture of CAN High and CAN Low signals from the Suzuki Swift OBD2 port, confirming active CAN bus communication for baseline measurement before Nitro OBD2 installation.
With a verified CAN bus and functioning monitoring tools, we moved to the next phase: recording CAN messages with the Nitro OBD2 connected. Since the car has only one OBD2 port, we ingeniously integrated our monitoring tool within the Nitro OBD2 itself.
We carefully opened the Nitro OBD2 device again and soldered wires to the Ground, CAN_High, and CAN_Low pins on its circuit board. These wires were then connected to the Raspberry PiCAN2 interface, allowing us to intercept and record CAN bus traffic while the Nitro OBD2 was plugged into the car’s OBD2 port.
Image alt text: Image of the Nitro OBD2 device opened with wires soldered to CAN bus pins, connected to a Raspberry Pi for real-time CAN traffic analysis while the device is plugged into the vehicle.
CAN Traffic Analysis Results: Silence from Nitro OBD2
The captured CAN bus traffic without the Nitro OBD2 connected showed normal vehicle communication. However, upon analyzing the CAN bus traffic with the Nitro OBD2 plugged in, a stark difference emerged.
Image alt text: Screenshot of recorded CAN bus traffic while Nitro OBD2 is connected, showing no additional messages or communication originating from the Nitro OBD2 device, indicating passive monitoring only.
A direct comparison of the two recordings revealed a crucial finding: no new messages or communication originated from the Nitro OBD2 device itself. The CAN bus traffic remained identical to the baseline recording without the device.
This conclusively demonstrated that the Nitro OBD2 is not actively communicating on the CAN bus. Instead, it passively observes CAN_H and CAN_L signals, likely to detect CAN activity and trigger its LEDs to blink, creating a false impression of activity.
Chip Examination: Deconstructing the Microcontroller
Having established that the Nitro OBD2 doesn’t communicate on the CAN bus, we proceeded to examine the microcontroller chip itself. The absence of a CAN transceiver on the board already strongly suggested that the chip wouldn’t have integrated one either. Unfortunately, the chip lacked any identifying markings, preventing us from easily accessing its datasheet. Driven by curiosity, we decided to decap the chip to analyze its internal structure.
After carefully dissolving the chip’s packaging in sulfuric acid at 200°C, we obtained a microscopic image of the die.
Image alt text: Microscopic comparison of a decapped Nitro OBD2 chip and a decapped TJA1050 CAN transceiver chip, highlighting the significantly different internal structures and confirming the Nitro OBD2 chip lacks CAN transceiver components.
The die image revealed standard microcontroller components: RAM, Flash memory, and a CPU core. However, there were no specialized embedded devices or structures indicative of a CAN transceiver. To provide a visual comparison, we decapped a TJA1050, a common standalone CAN transceiver chip. The side-by-side comparison of the die structures clearly illustrates the distinct and complex design of a dedicated CAN transceiver, utterly different from the simpler layout of the Nitro OBD2’s microcontroller. Furthermore, the Nitro OBD2 chip simply lacks the physical space to incorporate a CAN transceiver of that size within its die.
This chip analysis definitively reinforced our hypothesis: the Nitro OBD2 chip does not contain a CAN transceiver and is incapable of communicating on the CAN bus.
Playing Devil’s Advocate: Addressing Potential Counterarguments
Despite our thorough analysis pointing to the Nitro OBD2 being ineffective, we considered potential counterarguments to strengthen our conclusion and address possible user skepticism.
One common claim is that the Nitro OBD2 requires a “learning period” of around 200 km to become effective. This raises the question: could our relatively short test drive of 15 km have been insufficient to observe its effects? However, our CAN bus monitoring directly refutes this. The absence of any new arbitration IDs originating from the Nitro OBD2 means that the device is not transmitting commands to the car’s ECU. If it were truly reprogramming the engine, it would need to send CAN messages.
Two possibilities arise if we entertain the idea of it communicating:
- Using Existing Arbitration IDs: The device could theoretically attempt to mimic an existing ECU on the car’s network by using a pre-existing arbitration ID. However, this would be a highly risky and disruptive approach, likely causing conflicts and malfunctions in the car’s communication system.
- Passive Listening and Broadcasted Messages: Alternatively, it might only listen to broadcasted CAN messages without actively querying the car. This scenario would require an incredibly sophisticated understanding of every conceivable CAN system across various car models to interpret message meanings and adjust engine parameters effectively. This approach is even less plausible and far more complex than simply querying standard OBD2 PIDs (Parameter IDs) to gather basic driving data like throttle position, speed, and RPM, which the device also doesn’t do.
Regardless of these hypothetical scenarios, the fundamental fact remains: the Nitro OBD2 lacks a CAN transceiver and does not transmit any data on the CAN bus.
Therefore, we remain highly confident in our analysis and present the following conclusion.
Conclusion: Nitro OBD2 – Save Your Money and Buy Fuel Instead
Our comprehensive reverse engineering and testing of the Nitro OBD2 performance chip tuning box reveal that it is, in essence, a placebo device. It does not communicate with your car’s ECU, lacks the necessary hardware for CAN bus interaction, and its internal components are far too rudimentary to perform any engine tuning or performance enhancement functions. The blinking LEDs and push button are merely cosmetic, designed to create a false sense of activity.
As one insightful Amazon reviewer aptly put it: “Save 10 bucks, buy some fuel instead.” This perfectly encapsulates our findings. Instead of investing in this deceptive gadget, focus on genuine vehicle maintenance and driving habits to improve fuel efficiency and performance. For real performance enhancements, consider reputable and verifiable ECU tuning solutions, not cheap, misleading OBD2 dongles like the Nitro OBD2.
