The automotive aftermarket is flooded with devices promising miraculous performance gains and fuel efficiency improvements. Among these, the “Nitro OBD2” chip tuning box stands out with bold claims of instantly boosting your car’s power simply by plugging it into the OBD2 port. Advertised as a revolutionary “Chip Tuning Box,” it alleges to remap your engine for increased performance. However, a quick search online reveals a storm of skepticism, with many labeling it as a complete fake. Intrigued by these conflicting opinions, we at obd2global.com, decided to put the Nitro OBD2 to the test and dissect its inner workings through reverse engineering.
Delving into the Nitro OBD2 Dongle
Our journey began with a healthy dose of automotive security curiosity. The world of in-car networks and potential vulnerabilities is vast and fascinating. We’ve previously explored the intricacies of the CAN bus system, experimenting with various communication methods. This experience led us to investigate consumer-grade OBD2 devices and the promises they make.
A colleague introduced us to the Nitro OBD2, a small dongle marketed for its supposed ability to “monitor your driving style” and “reprogram your engine” for better fuel economy and horsepower. Skeptical yet curious, we acquired a Nitro OBD2 from Amazon to conduct a thorough reverse engineering analysis. This article details our findings, offering a deeper dive than a typical Amazon review could provide.
PCB Inspection: What’s Inside the Dongle?
Before even considering plugging the Nitro OBD2 into a vehicle, we opted for a preliminary investigation: a physical examination of its Printed Circuit Board (PCB). Opening the dongle revealed a standard OBD2 connector layout. The pinout diagram below illustrates the connections:
Image alt text: OBD2 connector pinout diagram for Nitro OBD2 dongle, highlighting pins for CAN High, CAN Low, and power.
Our initial check focused on verifying the connection of crucial pins, particularly those associated with the CAN High (CANH) and CAN Low (CANL) communication lines. Fortunately, these were indeed connected, alongside pins for J1850 and ISO 9141-2 protocols. However, a closer look at the circuit board revealed a different story.
Image alt text: Circuit board of Nitro OBD2 dongle showing a simple design with a chip, LEDs, and minimal components.
The PCB analysis exposed a surprisingly basic design. The connected pins were primarily linked to LEDs, while only the CAN bus pins appeared to interface with the central chip. This rudimentary layout pointed towards:
- A basic power supply circuit.
- A push button, likely for cosmetic purposes.
- A single, unidentifiable chip.
- Three LEDs, presumably for visual feedback.
Notably absent was a dedicated CAN transceiver chip. This raised significant doubts about the device’s advertised capabilities. Either the CAN transceiver was integrated within the main chip, or, more likely, the Nitro OBD2 lacked genuine CAN communication functionality altogether. The “magic” of engine reprogramming seemed to hinge on a single, small SOP-8 packaged chip, fueling our skepticism. Could such a simple device truly “understand how the actual car works, retrieve its state, modify it, [and] reprogram the ECUs” as claimed? It appeared increasingly improbable.
CAN Bus Activity Analysis: Does Nitro OBD2 Actually Communicate?
To determine if the Nitro OBD2 genuinely interacts with a vehicle’s systems, we conducted a CAN bus analysis. The most straightforward approach was to monitor CAN bus traffic before and after plugging in the device. If the Nitro OBD2 were actively communicating, we should observe new messages on the CAN network.
Test Setup for CAN Monitoring
For our test vehicle, we selected a 2012 diesel Suzuki Swift, a car model readily compatible with standard OBD2 diagnostics. We routinely use an ELM327 adapter and the Torque Android app with this car to access engine data and clear Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs), providing a known baseline for comparison.
To capture CAN bus data, we employed a Raspberry Pi equipped with a PiCAN2 shield. Utilizing a modified version of python-socketcan-monitor, we established a robust CAN bus logging system directly connected to the OBD2 port.
To further validate our setup, we used a PicoScope to visually inspect the CAN signals. As anticipated, we observed clear CAN_H and CAN_L waveforms, confirming a functioning CAN bus connection.
Image alt text: PicoScope capture of CAN bus signals (CAN High and CAN Low) from the Suzuki Swift OBD2 port, verifying signal integrity.
With our monitoring system verified, we proceeded to capture CAN bus traffic with the Nitro OBD2 connected. Since the car has only one OBD2 port, we devised a method to simultaneously monitor CAN activity while the Nitro OBD2 was plugged in.
We carefully disassembled the Nitro OBD2 and soldered wires to the Ground, CAN_High, and CAN_Low pins on its PCB. This allowed us to connect our Raspberry PiCAN2 interface directly to these points, effectively “piggybacking” onto the Nitro OBD2’s connection to the car’s CAN bus.
Image alt text: Nitro OBD2 dongle disassembled with wires soldered to CAN bus pins for simultaneous monitoring and connection to the car.
CAN Bus Monitoring Results: Silence from Nitro OBD2
We recorded CAN bus traffic both with and without the Nitro OBD2 plugged in. The results were starkly revealing.
CAN Bus Traffic without Nitro OBD2: (Image from original article – not directly reproducible here, but described as showing normal CAN bus activity)
CAN Bus Traffic with Nitro OBD2:
Image alt text: CAN bus traffic log captured with Nitro OBD2 plugged in, showing no discernible difference compared to baseline traffic.
A side-by-side comparison of the CAN bus logs revealed a critical finding: no new messages appeared when the Nitro OBD2 was connected. The traffic patterns remained virtually identical to the baseline recordings without the device.
This unequivocally demonstrated that the Nitro OBD2 was not actively transmitting any data onto the CAN bus. Instead, it appeared to passively observe the CAN_H and CAN_L signals, likely detecting CAN bus activity to trigger its LEDs, creating a deceptive illusion of functionality.
Chip Decapitation: Unmasking the Nitro OBD2’s Brain
Our CAN bus analysis strongly suggested that the Nitro OBD2 was not communicating, but we pushed our investigation further by examining the chip itself. Since the chip lacked any markings, we resorted to decapping – a destructive but revealing process to expose the silicon die for microscopic examination.
After carefully exposing the chip using sulfuric acid at 200°C, we obtained a die image.
In the decapped chip, we identified typical microcontroller components: RAM, Flash memory, and the CPU core. However, there was no evidence of any specialized embedded devices, particularly a CAN transceiver. It resembled a standard, general-purpose microcontroller. The possibility of an integrated CAN transceiver within this chip seemed increasingly unlikely.
To solidify this conclusion, we compared the Nitro OBD2 chip to a decapped TJA1050, a common standalone CAN transceiver chip.
Image alt text: Side-by-side comparison of decapped Nitro OBD2 chip (right) and decapped TJA1050 CAN transceiver chip (left), highlighting the distinct design and complexity of a dedicated CAN transceiver.
The visual comparison was conclusive. The TJA1050 CAN transceiver exhibited a significantly different and more complex design compared to the Nitro OBD2 chip. Furthermore, the size and architecture of the Nitro OBD2 chip simply did not provide enough physical space to incorporate a CAN transceiver alongside its core microcontroller functions.
This chip analysis definitively confirmed our hypothesis: the Nitro OBD2 chip does not contain a CAN transceiver and is incapable of CAN bus communication.
Playing Devil’s Advocate: Addressing Potential Counterarguments
Despite the compelling evidence, some proponents of the Nitro OBD2 might raise counterarguments. We considered these to further solidify our findings:
“It needs 200km to become effective!” This is a common claim. However, our CAN bus monitoring started immediately upon plugging in the device and continued throughout a test drive. The absence of any transmitted messages from the Nitro OBD2, even during driving, directly contradicts this claim.
“It uses existing arbitration IDs!” If the Nitro OBD2 were attempting to inject messages using pre-existing IDs, it would be a highly problematic and disruptive approach. It would likely interfere with legitimate ECU communication, potentially causing malfunctions. Furthermore, we observed no such disruptive behavior.
“It relies on broadcasted messages!” While theoretically possible, relying solely on passively listening to broadcasted CAN messages to “learn” and “optimize” engine performance is implausible. It would require an impossibly comprehensive understanding of every car manufacturer’s CAN bus protocols and message structures. Even then, without actively querying specific parameters (like standard OBD2 PIDs), the device would have minimal insight into driving habits or engine conditions.
Crucially, the lack of a CAN transceiver remains the definitive limitation. Without the hardware to transmit on the CAN bus, any software-based “optimization” becomes purely fictional.
Conclusion: Nitro OBD2 – A Performance Enhancing Myth
Our comprehensive Nitro Obd2 Test, encompassing PCB analysis, CAN bus monitoring, and chip decapping, leads to an unequivocal conclusion: the Nitro OBD2 performance chip tuning box is a scam.
It does not communicate on the CAN bus, lacks the necessary hardware for engine reprogramming, and its claims of performance enhancement are entirely unsubstantiated. The device is essentially a placebo, relying on blinking LEDs and consumer perception to create a false sense of improvement.
As one astute Amazon reviewer aptly stated: “Save 10 bucks, buy some fuel instead.” Indeed, your money is far better spent on actual vehicle maintenance or genuine performance upgrades rather than on this deceptive OBD2 dongle. For those seeking real performance gains, legitimate ECU tuning or proven aftermarket modifications are the only reliable paths. Always be critical of “too good to be true” automotive gadgets, and prioritize verifiable testing and expert reviews before investing in performance-enhancing products.
