Obd2 Chips, often marketed as performance boosters, promise significant fuel savings and increased horsepower. But do these devices, like the popular Nitro OBD2, truly deliver? This article delves into a detailed reverse-engineering analysis of the Nitro OBD2 to uncover the truth behind its claims.
Unveiling the Inner Workings of Nitro OBD2
Intrigued by the mixed reviews surrounding the Nitro OBD2, we embarked on a reverse-engineering journey to determine its efficacy. Our investigation involved a comprehensive analysis of the device’s printed circuit board (PCB) and its behavior on a vehicle’s Controller Area Network (CAN) bus.
PCB Examination: A Closer Look
Disassembling the Nitro OBD2 revealed a standard OBD2 pinout connected to a simple circuit comprising:
- A basic power circuit
- A push button
- A microchip
- Three LEDs
Notably absent was a CAN transceiver, a crucial component for communication with the vehicle’s computer system. This raised initial doubts about the device’s functionality. The chip itself, housed in a small SOP-8 package, lacked any identifying markings, further hindering our analysis.
CAN Bus Analysis: Silence on the Network
To ascertain if the Nitro OBD2 actively communicates with the vehicle, we monitored CAN bus traffic with and without the device plugged in. Using a Raspberry Pi with a PiCAN2 shield, we recorded all CAN messages transmitted on a 2012 Suzuki Swift.
Our findings were conclusive: no new messages appeared on the CAN bus when the Nitro OBD2 was connected. This confirmed our suspicion that the device was not actively engaging with the car’s systems, merely observing CAN activity to illuminate its LEDs.
Chip Deconstruction: No Secrets Revealed
Decapping the chip and examining its internal structure under a microscope revealed a standard microcontroller architecture. Comparing it to a decapped TJA1050 CAN transceiver highlighted the stark difference in design and confirmed the absence of any integrated CAN communication capabilities within the Nitro OBD2’s chip.
Addressing Potential Counterarguments
While our analysis strongly suggests the Nitro OBD2’s ineffectiveness, we considered potential counterarguments:
- The 200km Claim: Some users suggest the device requires a break-in period. However, the lack of any communication on the CAN bus indicates it’s not actively learning or adapting to the vehicle’s systems.
- Hidden Communication: It’s possible the device utilizes existing arbitration IDs or relies solely on broadcasted messages. However, these scenarios are unlikely due to the potential for interference with critical vehicle functions and the impracticality of decoding all possible CAN messages without specific queries.
Conclusion: Separating Fact from Fiction
Our comprehensive analysis reveals the Nitro OBD2, and likely similar OBD2 “performance chips,” do not actively engage with the vehicle’s engine control unit (ECU). The absence of a CAN transceiver and the lack of any discernible communication on the CAN bus strongly indicate these devices are not capable of delivering on their advertised promises. As one Amazon reviewer aptly put it: “Save 10 bucks, buy some fuel instead.”
