The world of automotive performance enhancements is rife with products promising miraculous gains with minimal effort. Among these, the “Nitro Obd2 Diesel” chip tuning box stands out with bold claims of increased horsepower and fuel efficiency simply by plugging it into your car’s OBD2 port. But do these devices actually live up to the hype, or are they just another automotive myth preying on eager car enthusiasts? At techcarusa.com, we decided to investigate the Nitro OBD2 Diesel, tearing it down and analyzing its functionality to separate fact from fiction.
Delving into the Nitro OBD2 Diesel Dongle
Automotive technology and security are constantly evolving, creating fascinating avenues for exploration. The Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, the backbone of modern vehicle communication, offers a particularly interesting area to investigate. We’ve previously explored the CAN bus in various contexts, sparking our curiosity about consumer-grade OBD2 devices and their purported capabilities.
A colleague brought the Nitro OBD2 Diesel to our attention, intrigued by its advertised promise: a plug-and-play chip tuning box claiming to boost car performance and fuel economy. Skeptical yet curious, we purchased a Nitro OBD2 Diesel from Amazon to conduct our own reverse engineering analysis. Our aim was simple: to determine if this device genuinely enhances vehicle performance or if it’s merely a placebo effect packaged in a plastic dongle. Since a detailed Amazon review wouldn’t suffice to present our findings, we’ve compiled this comprehensive blog post to share our in-depth investigation.
PCB Teardown: What’s Inside the Nitro OBD2 Diesel?
Before even considering plugging the Nitro OBD2 Diesel into a vehicle, our first step was to examine its internal components. Opening the dongle revealed a standard OBD2 connector layout. The pinout configuration is typical, assigning pins for various communication protocols and power.
Initial inspection confirmed that the pins associated with the CAN High (CANH) and CAN Low (CANL) bus were indeed connected – a fundamental requirement for any device intending to communicate via the CAN bus. Beyond CAN, connections were also present for J1850 and ISO 9141-2 protocols.
Examining the printed circuit board (PCB) revealed a surprisingly simple design. The key observation was that only the CAN bus related pins were actively connected to the central chip. The remaining connected pins were solely linked to the onboard LEDs.
Based on the PCB analysis, we could deduce a basic schematic: a rudimentary power circuit, a push button, a single integrated circuit (IC) chip, and three LEDs. Notably absent was a dedicated CAN transceiver chip. This raised immediate questions: Was a CAN transceiver integrated within the main chip itself, or was the Nitro OBD2 Diesel incapable of CAN bus communication altogether?
The advertised functionality of the Nitro OBD2 Diesel hinges on its ability to:
- Understand vehicle operation.
- Monitor vehicle parameters.
- Modify engine control unit (ECU) settings.
- Reprogram ECUs for performance gains.
The simplicity of the PCB, particularly the single SOP-8 packaged chip, cast significant doubt on the device’s sophisticated claims. It seemed increasingly likely that the “magic” of the Nitro OBD2 Diesel was simply smoke and mirrors.
CAN Bus Communication Analysis: Does Nitro OBD2 Diesel Actually Talk to Your Car?
To ascertain whether the Nitro OBD2 Diesel genuinely interacts with a vehicle’s systems, we conducted a CAN bus analysis. The most straightforward approach was to monitor CAN bus traffic both before and after plugging in the device. Any active communication from the Nitro OBD2 Diesel would manifest as new messages on the CAN bus.
Test Setup
For our CAN bus analysis, we utilized a 2012 diesel Suzuki Swift, a vehicle known to be compatible with standard OBD2 diagnostic tools like ELM327 and software like Torque. This car allowed us to establish a baseline of typical CAN bus communication.
Our setup involved a Raspberry Pi equipped with a PiCAN2 shield to record CAN messages directly from the OBD2 port. We employed a Python script based on python-socketcan-monitor to capture and log CAN bus traffic.
To ensure the integrity of our setup, we also verified the CAN bus signals using a PicoScope. This confirmed the presence of expected CAN_H and CAN_L signals, validating our monitoring environment.
With a functional CAN bus monitoring system in place, we proceeded to analyze the impact of the Nitro OBD2 Diesel. To capture CAN traffic while the Nitro OBD2 Diesel was connected, and given the car’s single OBD2 port, we opted to insert our monitoring tool directly into the Nitro OBD2 Diesel itself.
We carefully opened the Nitro OBD2 Diesel again and soldered wires to the Ground, CAN_High, and CAN_Low pins on its PCB. These wires connected to our Raspberry Pi’s PiCAN2 interface, allowing us to sniff CAN bus traffic as it passed through the Nitro OBD2 Diesel while plugged into the car.
CAN Bus Analysis Results: Silence from Nitro OBD2 Diesel
We recorded CAN bus traffic in two scenarios: first, with only our monitoring tool connected to the OBD2 port (baseline), and second, with the Nitro OBD2 Diesel inserted between the OBD2 port and our monitoring tool.
The captured CAN bus traffic without the Nitro OBD2 Diesel showed typical vehicle communication. However, upon analyzing the CAN bus traffic with the Nitro OBD2 Diesel plugged in, a striking observation emerged.
Comparing the two datasets revealed no discernible difference. Crucially, no new CAN messages originated when the Nitro OBD2 Diesel was connected. This indicated that the Nitro OBD2 Diesel was not actively communicating on the CAN bus. It appeared to be passively observing CAN_H and CAN_L signals, likely to trigger the blinking LEDs, but not transmitting any data itself.
Chip Examination: Decapping the Mystery IC
Our CAN bus analysis strongly suggested that the Nitro OBD2 Diesel was not engaging in active communication. This was consistent with our PCB analysis, which didn’t reveal a dedicated CAN transceiver. However, driven by scientific curiosity, we proceeded to examine the single chip on the Nitro OBD2 Diesel PCB in more detail.
Unfortunately, the chip lacked any identifying markings, preventing us from readily accessing its datasheet. To understand its internal structure, we resorted to decapping – a process of chemically removing the chip’s packaging to expose the silicon die. After carefully treating the chip with sulfuric acid at 200°C, we obtained a microscopic image.
The decapped chip revealed typical features of a microcontroller: RAM, Flash memory, and a CPU core. However, there was no evidence of specialized embedded devices like a CAN transceiver. It appeared to be a standard, general-purpose microcontroller.
To further solidify our findings, we compared the Nitro OBD2 Diesel chip to a decapped TJA1050, a common standalone CAN transceiver.
The visual comparison is stark. The architecture and design of the TJA1050 CAN transceiver are distinctly different from the Nitro OBD2 Diesel chip. Furthermore, the size and complexity of the CAN transceiver die are simply incompatible with the limited space within the Nitro OBD2 Diesel’s microcontroller.
This chip-level analysis definitively confirmed our hypothesis: the Nitro OBD2 Diesel chip does not incorporate a CAN transceiver and is therefore incapable of CAN bus communication.
Addressing the Devil’s Advocate: Common Counterarguments
Despite the compelling evidence from our reverse engineering, some may still harbor doubts or offer counterarguments in defense of the Nitro OBD2 Diesel. Let’s address some common points of skepticism:
-
“It needs 200km to become effective”: This claim, often found in user reviews, suggests a learning period for the device. However, our CAN bus analysis, conducted across a sufficient driving period for testing, showed absolutely no communication from the device. If it’s not communicating, it’s not learning or adapting.
-
“It uses existing ECU arbitration IDs”: This argument proposes that the Nitro OBD2 Diesel might be sending messages using CAN IDs already employed by the car’s ECUs. While technically possible, this is highly improbable and incredibly risky. Impersonating a legitimate ECU would disrupt critical vehicle communication and likely trigger error codes or malfunctions. Moreover, our CAN bus analysis showed no additional messages at all, regardless of ID.
-
“It relies on broadcasted messages”: This suggests the device passively listens to all CAN bus traffic and somehow infers driving habits and optimizes performance based on overheard data. For this to work, the Nitro OBD2 Diesel would need an encyclopedic knowledge of every car manufacturer’s CAN bus protocols and message meanings – an unrealistic proposition. Even then, passively monitoring broadcasted messages is a highly inefficient and unreliable way to implement effective engine tuning. Standard OBD2 Parameter IDs (PIDs) exist for accessing basic driving data, but even these are not utilized by the Nitro OBD2 Diesel.
Ultimately, the absence of a CAN transceiver and the lack of any CAN bus communication are insurmountable obstacles for the Nitro OBD2 Diesel to function as advertised.
Conclusion: Save Your Money on Nitro OBD2 Diesel
Our comprehensive reverse engineering analysis, encompassing PCB examination, CAN bus monitoring, and chip decapping, leads to an unequivocal conclusion: the Nitro OBD2 Diesel performance chip is a scam.
It does not communicate with your car’s systems, it does not reprogram your ECU, and it certainly does not enhance performance or fuel economy. Its sole function appears to be blinking LEDs to create a placebo effect, mimicking activity without actually doing anything.
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 genuine automotive maintenance than on this deceptive and ineffective gadget. Don’t fall for the hype – the Nitro OBD2 Diesel is nothing more than an expensive, blinking paperweight.
