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 enhancing your car’s performance simply by plugging it into the OBD2 port. Marketed as a revolutionary way to remap your engine for increased power and economy, the Nitro OBD2 has garnered mixed reviews, with some users reporting positive results while many others dismiss it as a complete scam. At techcarusa.com, we decided to delve deep into this controversial device, specifically focusing on its application for diesel cars, and conduct a thorough reverse engineering analysis to uncover the truth behind the hype. Is the Nitro OBD2 for diesel cars a legitimate performance enhancer, or just another gadget preying on unsuspecting car owners? Let’s find out.
Inside the Nitro OBD2 Dongle: A PCB Analysis
Before even considering plugging the Nitro OBD2 into a diesel car, our expert team at techcarusa.com opted for a preliminary investigation: a teardown and analysis of the device’s internal components. Opening the dongle revealed a standard OBD2 connector interface. The initial check confirmed connectivity to the CAN high (CANH) and CAN low (CANL) pins, essential for communication within a modern vehicle’s network. Further inspection of the circuit board unveiled connections to pins associated with various communication protocols like CAN bus, J1850, and ISO 9141-2.
OBD2 connector pinout diagram showing standard pin assignments, relevant for understanding device interface.
However, closer examination of the PCB exposed a rather simplistic design. The connected pins primarily served the LEDs, while the core chip connections were limited to the CAN bus lines. The circuit board layout was remarkably basic, featuring:
- A rudimentary power circuit.
- A push button, likely for cosmetic purposes.
- A single, small chip.
- Three LEDs, presumably for visual feedback.
Internal circuit board of the Nitro OBD2 dongle, highlighting the basic components and simple design.
Notably absent was a dedicated CAN transceiver chip. This raised immediate skepticism. A genuine OBD2 performance tuning device would typically require a CAN transceiver to effectively communicate and modify the car’s Engine Control Unit (ECU) via the CAN bus. The implication was stark: either the CAN transceiver was integrated into the unidentified chip, or the Nitro OBD2 lacked the fundamental hardware for actual ECU communication and reprogramming. Could all the claimed “magic” of engine tuning be packed into a single, unassuming SOP-8 package? Our initial assessment leaned heavily towards disbelief.
CAN Bus Communication Analysis on a Diesel Car
To ascertain if the Nitro OBD2 genuinely interacts with a vehicle’s systems, we proceeded to CAN bus traffic analysis. The objective was simple: monitor CAN bus activity before and after plugging in the Nitro OBD2 into a diesel car and identify any new messages originating from the device.
Test Setup on a Diesel Suzuki Swift
For our test, we selected a 2012 diesel Suzuki Swift, a vehicle known to be compatible with standard OBD2 diagnostic tools. This allowed us to establish a baseline of normal CAN bus communication using an ELM327 adapter and Android Torque app, confirming the functionality of the OBD2 port and CAN bus in the test vehicle.
To capture CAN bus data, we employed a Raspberry Pi equipped with a PiCAN2 shield and utilized a socket-CAN monitor. This setup enabled us to record all CAN messages transmitted on the OBD2 port. For added assurance, we also verified the CAN signal integrity using a PicoScope, confirming the expected CAN_H and CAN_L waveforms.
PicoScope capture of CAN bus signals from the diesel Suzuki Swift’s OBD2 port, verifying signal integrity.
To monitor CAN traffic with the Nitro OBD2 in place, we faced a challenge: the car has only one OBD2 port. Our solution was to carefully open the Nitro OBD2 dongle and solder wires to the Ground, CAN_High, and CAN_Low pins within the device. This allowed us to connect our Raspberry PiCAN2 interface directly into the Nitro OBD2’s CAN connection, effectively “sniffing” the CAN bus traffic as it passed through the dongle while plugged into the car.
Modified Nitro OBD2 dongle with wires soldered to CAN bus pins, enabling real-time traffic monitoring during operation in the diesel car.
CAN Traffic Analysis Results: Silence from the Nitro OBD2
With the monitoring setup in place, we recorded CAN bus traffic in two scenarios: first, with only our monitoring tool connected, and second, with the Nitro OBD2 plugged in and our monitoring tool inline.
The CAN bus traffic logs revealed a striking finding. Comparing the traffic with and without the Nitro OBD2, we observed no new messages, arbitration IDs, or any communication whatsoever originating from the Nitro OBD2 device. The CAN bus traffic remained identical in both scenarios.
Comparison of CAN bus traffic logs: (Top) Baseline traffic without Nitro OBD2. (Bottom) Traffic with Nitro OBD2 plugged in. No discernible difference or messages from Nitro OBD2 are present.
This result strongly indicated that the Nitro OBD2 is not actively communicating on the CAN bus of the diesel car. Instead, it appears to passively observe CAN_H and CAN_L signals, likely to detect CAN bus activity and trigger the blinking LEDs, creating a false impression of activity.
Microchip Examination: No CAN Transceiver Inside
Having established the Nitro OBD2’s silence on the CAN bus, we proceeded to analyze the single chip residing within the device. Lacking any identifying markings, we resorted to chip decapping to examine its internal structure. After exposing the die using sulfuric acid, microscopic examination revealed core microcontroller components: RAM, Flash memory, and a CPU core. However, there was no evidence of a dedicated CAN transceiver or any specialized automotive communication hardware integrated within the chip.
Decapped microchips: (Left) TJA1050 CAN transceiver for reference. (Right) Nitro OBD2 chip. The Nitro OBD2 chip lacks the distinct design features and size expected of an integrated CAN transceiver.
For comparison, we decapped a TJA1050, a common standalone CAN transceiver chip. The stark difference in die layout and complexity was evident. The TJA1050’s design clearly showcased the dedicated circuitry for CAN communication, which was absent in the Nitro OBD2 chip. This microscopic analysis corroborated our earlier findings, confirming that the Nitro OBD2 chip does not incorporate a CAN transceiver and is incapable of communicating on the CAN bus, a prerequisite for any OBD2 performance tuning device.
Addressing Counterarguments: The Devil’s Advocate
Despite the compelling evidence against the Nitro OBD2, some proponents argue that the device requires a “learning period,” often cited as around 200 kilometers of driving, to become effective. They might contend that our relatively short test drive and CAN monitoring period were insufficient to observe its effects.
However, our CAN bus analysis directly refutes this claim. The absence of any new arbitration IDs or messages originating from the Nitro OBD2, even during operation, indicates it is not transmitting data onto the CAN bus. For the Nitro OBD2 to function as advertised – reprogramming the ECU – it would necessarily need to communicate on the CAN bus.
Two hypothetical scenarios attempting to rationalize the “learning period” argument are easily dismissed:
- Using Existing Arbitration IDs: If the Nitro OBD2 were to use existing arbitration IDs already employed by the car’s ECUs, it would lead to communication conflicts and potentially severe malfunctions. This approach is highly improbable and dangerous.
- Passive Monitoring and Universal Understanding: Alternatively, if the device passively monitored broadcasted CAN messages and attempted to “learn” the car’s systems without active communication, it would require an impossible level of pre-programmed knowledge about every conceivable CAN system across all car manufacturers and models. Furthermore, without querying standard OBD2 PIDs, it would lack even basic driver input and engine parameter data.
Regardless of hypothetical operational modes, the fundamental absence of a CAN transceiver within the Nitro OBD2 hardware remains the decisive factor. Without the physical capability to transmit and receive CAN signals, the device cannot communicate with the ECU and therefore cannot perform any engine tuning or performance enhancement functions.
Conclusion: Nitro OBD2 for Diesel Cars – A Performance Myth
Our comprehensive reverse engineering analysis of the Nitro OBD2, specifically in the context of diesel cars, leads to an unequivocal conclusion: the Nitro OBD2 performance chip is a deceptive device that does not deliver on its performance enhancement claims. It lacks the necessary hardware for CAN bus communication and does not actively interact with the vehicle’s ECU. Its operation is limited to passively observing CAN signals and blinking LEDs to create a false impression of functionality.
As one insightful Amazon reviewer aptly summarized: “Save 10 bucks, buy some fuel instead.” For genuine performance improvements in your diesel car, consider reputable ECU tuning services or performance modifications from established automotive specialists – and steer clear of OBD2 plug-in scams like the Nitro OBD2.
