The automotive aftermarket is flooded with products 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 enhancing engine power simply by plugging it into your car’s OBD2 port. Advertised as a revolutionary device that reprograms your engine control unit (ECU) based on your driving habits, the Nitro OBD2 has garnered both positive and negative reviews online. Intrigued by the contrasting opinions and our expertise in automotive security and CAN bus systems, we decided to investigate the Nitro OBD2 through reverse engineering to determine if it truly lives up to the hype, or if it’s just another automotive myth.
PCB Analysis: Peeking Inside the Nitro OBD2 Dongle
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 aligned with typical OBD2 setups, as illustrated below:
Initial inspection focused on verifying the connectivity of crucial pins, particularly those associated with the CAN High (CANH) and CAN Low (CANL) communication lines. Crucially, these pins were indeed connected, along with pins for J1850 and ISO 9141-2 protocols. However, a closer look at the circuit board revealed a simpler picture:
Analyzing the printed circuit board (PCB), it became apparent that only the pins related to the CAN bus were actually connected to the main chip. The remaining connected pins were solely linked to the LEDs. This basic layout suggested a simplified functionality:
- A rudimentary power circuit.
- A push button, likely for cosmetic purposes.
- A single, small microcontroller chip.
- Three LEDs for visual feedback.
Notably absent was a dedicated CAN transceiver chip. This raised immediate skepticism. For the Nitro OBD2 to genuinely interact with the car’s CAN bus and reprogram the ECU, it would require a CAN transceiver to manage the physical layer communication. The implication was that either the microcontroller miraculously integrated a CAN transceiver within its compact SOP-8 package, or, more likely, the device lacked genuine CAN communication capabilities altogether. The ambitious claims of understanding car operation, retrieving vehicle state, modifying settings, and reprogramming ECUs seemed increasingly improbable given the simplistic hardware.
CAN Bus Analysis: Monitoring Vehicle Communication
To ascertain whether the Nitro OBD2 actively communicates on the Controller Area Network (CAN bus), we conducted a series of tests monitoring CAN bus traffic with and without the device plugged in. Our objective was to detect any new messages originating from the Nitro OBD2 that would indicate active communication and potential ECU reprogramming.
Setup for CAN Bus Monitoring
For our CAN bus analysis, we utilized a 2012 diesel Suzuki Swift, a vehicle model known to be compatible with standard OBD2 diagnostic tools like ELM327 and software like Torque. This familiarity allowed us to establish a baseline of normal CAN bus activity. Our monitoring setup involved a Raspberry Pi equipped with a PiCAN2 shield, running a modified version of a socket-CAN monitor to capture all CAN messages transmitted on the OBD2 port. The setup to intercept CAN messages directly from the OBD2 port was straightforward:
To validate our setup and confirm the integrity of the CAN bus signals, we employed a PicoScope to observe the CAN High (CAN_H) and CAN Low (CAN_L) waveforms. As anticipated, the signals were clean and indicative of a functioning CAN bus.
With a verified and operational CAN bus monitoring system, we proceeded to analyze the communication when the Nitro OBD2 was connected. Since the car has only one OBD2 port, we adopted an inline monitoring approach. We carefully opened the Nitro OBD2 dongle and soldered three wires directly to the Ground, CAN_High, and CAN_Low pins on its PCB. These wires were then connected to our Raspberry PiCAN2 interface, effectively placing our CAN bus sniffer between the car’s OBD2 port and the Nitro OBD2 device.
This configuration allowed us to simultaneously monitor CAN bus traffic while the Nitro OBD2 was plugged into the car, capturing any messages transmitted by the device itself or any alterations in the existing CAN communication.
Results of CAN Bus Monitoring
We began by recording the baseline CAN bus traffic of the Suzuki Swift without the Nitro OBD2 connected. This established a reference point of normal vehicle communication. Subsequently, we recorded the CAN bus traffic with the Nitro OBD2 plugged in and actively powered.
Comparing the CAN bus logs from both scenarios revealed a stark reality. No new CAN messages or arbitration IDs appeared in the traffic when the Nitro OBD2 was active. The CAN bus traffic remained virtually identical to the baseline recording.
This lack of any discernible CAN communication from the Nitro OBD2 strongly indicated that the device was not actively interacting with the car’s systems via the CAN bus. It appeared to be passively observing the CAN_H and CAN_L signals, likely to detect CAN activity and trigger the blinking LEDs, creating a false impression of functionality.
Chip Analysis: Delving into the Microcontroller
Having established that the Nitro OBD2 does not communicate on the CAN bus, we proceeded to analyze the single chip residing on its PCB. Unfortunately, the chip lacked any identifying markings, preventing us from readily accessing its datasheet. However, driven by curiosity and chip analysis expertise, we decided to decap the chip to examine its internal structure. After subjecting the chip to sulfuric acid at 200°C, we obtained a die photograph:
The die image revealed typical microcontroller components: RAM, Flash memory, and a CPU core. However, there was no evidence of specialized embedded devices, such as a CAN transceiver, integrated within the chip. It resembled a standard, general-purpose microcontroller, lacking the necessary hardware for direct CAN bus communication.
To further solidify this conclusion, we compared the die of the Nitro OBD2 chip with the die of a known CAN transceiver, the TJA1050.
The comparison clearly illustrates the starkly different design and complexity of a dedicated CAN transceiver chip compared to the Nitro OBD2 microcontroller. The TJA1050 die exhibits the specific circuitry and architecture characteristic of a CAN transceiver, features completely absent in the Nitro OBD2 chip. Furthermore, the physical size constraints within the Nitro OBD2 chip package simply preclude the integration of a component as complex as a CAN transceiver. This chip-level analysis definitively confirmed our hypothesis: the Nitro OBD2 chip does not incorporate a CAN transceiver and is incapable of CAN bus communication.
Playing Devil’s Advocate: Addressing Potential Counterarguments
Despite the compelling evidence from our PCB, CAN bus, and chip analyses, we considered potential counterarguments that proponents of Nitro OBD2 might raise. One common claim is that the device requires a “learning period” of approximately 200 km to become effective. This raises the question: could our 15 km test drive have been insufficient to observe its effects?
Our CAN bus monitoring directly addresses this point. The absence of any new arbitration IDs or CAN messages originating from the Nitro OBD2, even during our 15 km test drive, strongly refutes the idea of a learning process involving active CAN communication. If the device were genuinely learning driving habits and reprogramming the ECU, it must transmit messages on the CAN bus.
Two hypothetical scenarios could be considered, albeit implausible:
-
Using Existing Arbitration IDs: The Nitro OBD2 could theoretically attempt to mimic an existing ECU on the car by using pre-existing arbitration IDs to send messages. However, this is highly improbable and fundamentally flawed. Such an approach would inevitably lead to communication conflicts and disrupt the car’s critical systems, posing significant risks.
-
Passive Listening and Broadcasted Messages: Alternatively, the Nitro OBD2 might solely rely on passively listening to broadcasted CAN messages without actively querying or transmitting. This scenario is even more unrealistic. To meaningfully interpret CAN bus data and reprogram the ECU across a vast range of car models and CAN implementations, the device would require an impossibly comprehensive and adaptable understanding of every car’s CAN system. Furthermore, even basic OBD2 Parameter IDs (PIDs) – standardized requests for engine data – are not utilized by the Nitro OBD2, further undermining any pretense of intelligent engine tuning.
The lack of a CAN transceiver within the Nitro OBD2 hardware remains the definitive constraint. Without the physical capability to transmit and receive CAN signals, the device is fundamentally incapable of communicating with the car’s ECU or performing any form of engine reprogramming.
Conclusion: Save Your Money, Skip the Nitro OBD2
Our comprehensive reverse engineering analysis of the Nitro OBD2 has conclusively demonstrated that this “performance chip tuning box” is, in essence, a sophisticated placebo. It does not communicate on the CAN bus, lacks the necessary hardware for ECU reprogramming, and its internal components are far too simplistic to deliver on its performance enhancement claims. The blinking LEDs and push button are purely for show, designed to create a false sense of activity and effectiveness.
As one insightful Amazon reviewer aptly stated: “Save 10 bucks, buy some fuel instead.” Indeed, your money is far better spent on actual fuel or legitimate automotive maintenance than on this deceptive and ultimately useless gadget. The Nitro OBD2 serves as a stark reminder to approach aftermarket automotive performance enhancements with critical scrutiny and to rely on verifiable technical analysis rather than marketing promises.
