The automotive world is full of gadgets promising to enhance 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 “Chip Tuning Box,” NitroOBD2 has garnered both online buzz and skepticism. Claims range from genuine performance boosts to accusations of being a complete hoax. As experts at obd2global.com specializing in automotive diagnostics and repair, we decided to delve into the workings of this device to uncover the truth behind “What Is Nitro Obd2” and whether it lives up to its performance-enhancing promises.
Our journey into automotive enhancements and security has led us down many interesting paths, particularly exploring the intricacies of the Controller Area Network (CAN) bus system in modern vehicles. Intrigued by the buzz around OBD2 devices and their purported capabilities, we were particularly drawn to the Nitro OBD2. A friend, curious about its effectiveness, prompted us to investigate. We purchased a Nitro OBD2 device and embarked on a reverse engineering mission to see what secrets it held. Unable to provide a comprehensive review on e-commerce platforms, we’ve compiled our findings into this detailed article to share our expert insights.
Inside the Nitro OBD2 Dongle: A PCB Analysis
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 interface. The pinout configuration was typical, as shown below:
Alt text: Diagram illustrating the pinout of an OBD2 dongle, highlighting pins for power, ground, CAN bus, and other communication protocols.
Our initial check focused on the connectivity of the CAN High (CANH) and CAN Low (CANL) pins. Crucially, these pins were indeed connected, which was a prerequisite for any CAN bus communication. Further examination revealed connections to pins associated with J1850 and ISO 9141-2 protocols, alongside the CAN bus.
Upon inspecting the circuit board, it became apparent that only pins related to CAN communication were actively connected to the main chip. The other connected pins were simply linked to LEDs, suggesting a basic level of visual feedback.
Alt text: Detailed view of the Nitro OBD2 circuit board, showcasing the chip, LEDs, and basic electronic components.
From this initial PCB analysis, we could deduce a rudimentary layout: a power circuit, a push button, a primary chip, and three LEDs. Notably absent was a dedicated CAN transceiver chip. This raised a significant question: was a CAN transceiver integrated within the main chip itself, or was it entirely missing? The device’s claimed functionality hinges on sophisticated software capable of understanding vehicle operations, retrieving engine data, and reprogramming Electronic Control Units (ECUs) to alter performance. The fact that all these functions were supposedly contained within a single, small SOP-8 package chip made us increasingly skeptical. It appeared highly improbable that a genuine performance-enhancing device could be engineered with such minimal hardware.
CAN Bus Communication Analysis
Setting up the CAN Bus Monitoring
To determine if the Nitro OBD2 actively interacts with the vehicle’s systems, we needed to monitor its communication on the CAN bus. Our approach was to record CAN messages both before and after plugging in the Nitro OBD2 device. By comparing these recordings, we could identify any new messages originating from the dongle.
For our test vehicle, we used a 2012 diesel Suzuki Swift, a car model familiar to us for OBD2 communication using tools like ELM327 and Android’s Torque app. This setup allowed us to reliably retrieve engine data and clear Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs).
We employed a Raspberry Pi equipped with a PiCAN2 shield to log CAN bus traffic directly from the OBD2 port. Utilizing a modified version of python-socketcan-monitor, we were able to capture and analyze CAN messages transmitted on the vehicle’s network.
The setup for recording CAN messages directly from the OBD2 port is illustrated below:
To ensure the integrity of the CAN signals, we also used a PicoScope to examine the CAN_H and CAN_L waveforms. As anticipated, the signals were consistent with standard CAN bus communication.
Alt text: Screenshot from a PicoScope showing clean CAN High and CAN Low signals from the Suzuki Swift’s OBD2 port.
With a fully operational CAN bus monitoring system in place, we proceeded to record CAN traffic with the Nitro OBD2 connected. Since the car has only one OBD2 port, we opted to integrate our monitoring tool directly into the Nitro OBD2 device. We carefully opened the Nitro OBD2 enclosure 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, enabling us to sniff CAN bus traffic while the Nitro OBD2 was simultaneously plugged into the car’s OBD2 port.
This modified setup allowed us to act as a “man-in-the-middle,” observing all CAN bus communications, including any potential messages from the Nitro OBD2.
Alt text: Image of the Nitro OBD2 device opened up, showing wires soldered to CAN bus pins for monitoring traffic with a Raspberry Pi.
CAN Bus Monitoring Results: Silence from Nitro OBD2
We first recorded the baseline CAN bus traffic of the vehicle without the Nitro OBD2 connected. This provided a reference point of normal CAN communication within the car’s systems.
Subsequently, we recorded the CAN bus traffic with the Nitro OBD2 plugged in and active. Comparing the two sets of data revealed a striking result:
Alt text: Two screenshots showing CAN bus traffic logs, side-by-side comparison of traffic with and without the Nitro OBD2 device plugged in.
A side-by-side comparison clearly indicated no new messages or communication originating from the Nitro OBD2 device when it was plugged in. The CAN bus traffic remained virtually identical to the baseline recording without the device.
This crucial finding strongly suggested that the Nitro OBD2 does not actively communicate on the CAN bus. Instead, it appears to passively monitor the CAN_H and CAN_L signals, likely detecting CAN bus activity to trigger the blinking LEDs, creating a placebo effect of activity without any real data exchange or ECU modification.
Chip Decap Analysis: Unveiling the Microcontroller
Having established that the Nitro OBD2 doesn’t communicate on the CAN bus, we turned our attention to the main chip itself. The absence of a separate CAN transceiver on the PCB already pointed towards limited functionality. Unfortunately, the chip lacked any markings or engravings, preventing us from identifying it via datasheets. However, driven by curiosity, we decided to perform a chip decap to examine its internal structure.
After subjecting the chip to sulfuric acid at 200°C, we successfully decapped it, revealing its die. Microscopic examination showed recognizable structures characteristic of a microcontroller: RAM, Flash memory, and a CPU core. However, there were no signs of specialized embedded devices like a CAN transceiver within the chip’s architecture. It appeared to be a standard, general-purpose microcontroller, lacking the necessary hardware for CAN bus communication beyond passive listening.
To further emphasize this point, we compared the decapped Nitro OBD2 chip with a known CAN transceiver, the TJA1050. The TJA1050 is a common and widely used CAN transceiver chip. We decapped a TJA1050 and placed it alongside the Nitro OBD2 chip for a visual comparison:
Alt text: Microscopic image comparing the die layout of the Nitro OBD2 chip and a decapped TJA1050 CAN transceiver, highlighting the structural differences.
As clearly illustrated in the image, the internal design of a dedicated CAN transceiver like the TJA1050 is distinctly different from the Nitro OBD2 chip. Furthermore, the physical size and complexity of the TJA1050 die suggest that integrating a CAN transceiver within the small Nitro OBD2 chip package is highly improbable, if not impossible. This visual evidence further reinforces our conclusion that the Nitro OBD2 chip does not contain a CAN transceiver and is incapable of active CAN bus communication required for performance tuning.
Addressing the Devil’s Advocate: Countering Claims and Misconceptions
Despite our comprehensive analysis pointing to the Nitro OBD2 being ineffective, we considered potential counterarguments and common user beliefs to ensure our conclusion is robust.
One frequent claim is that the Nitro OBD2 requires a “learning period” of around 200 kilometers to become effective. This raises the question: could our relatively short test drive while monitoring CAN traffic (approximately 15 km) be insufficient to assess its functionality?
However, our CAN bus analysis directly refutes this claim. The absence of any new arbitration IDs originating from the Nitro OBD2 device means it is not transmitting messages on the CAN bus, regardless of the driving distance. If it were to communicate, it would have to either:
- Use existing arbitration IDs: This scenario would imply the Nitro OBD2 is attempting to impersonate a legitimate ECU on the vehicle’s CAN network. This is highly problematic and dangerous, as it would likely interfere with genuine ECU communication and could lead to vehicle malfunctions.
- Rely solely on broadcasted messages: This alternative would require the Nitro OBD2 to passively interpret all CAN messages broadcasted by the vehicle to “learn” driving habits. However, this approach is incredibly complex and impractical. It would necessitate the device possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of every CAN system across various car manufacturers and models to decipher message meanings. Even then, relying solely on passively listening to generic broadcast messages is a highly inefficient and unreliable way to gather specific driver behavior data needed for performance adjustments. A more logical approach for any legitimate OBD2 performance device would be to actively query standard OBD2 PIDs (Parameter IDs) to obtain real-time data like throttle position, RPM, speed, and engine load, providing a direct insight into driving habits. However, our analysis showed no such queries or communication from the Nitro OBD2.
Crucially, the definitive lack of a CAN transceiver within the Nitro OBD2 hardware renders any argument for its CAN bus communication and ECU reprogramming capabilities moot.
Therefore, we remain highly confident in our analysis and conclusion.
Conclusion: Nitro OBD2 – A Fuel Purchase, Not a Fuel Saver
Our in-depth reverse engineering and analysis of the Nitro OBD2 performance chip tuning box reveal that it is, in essence, a deceptive device. It does not actively communicate on the CAN bus, lacks the necessary hardware for ECU reprogramming, and functions primarily as a placebo with blinking LEDs. Claims of increased horsepower, torque, and fuel efficiency are unsubstantiated and misleading.
As one insightful Amazon reviewer aptly commented: “Save 10 bucks, buy some fuel instead.” This succinctly captures the true value of the Nitro OBD2 – or rather, its lack thereof. For those seeking genuine performance enhancements or improved fuel economy, investing in legitimate ECU tuning services or quality aftermarket parts from reputable sources is the only effective path. The Nitro OBD2, unfortunately, offers nothing more than the illusion of improvement.
