Well, not exactly ... the key to interpreting any crash test into a barrier is that you're seeing the result of two identical vehicles hitting each other, so there's really no way to compare across vehicle classes and sizes. So, two Civics hitting each other with 25% offset would be safer for the driver than two Pilots hitting each other, but the increased size, height, and weight of the Pilot would win out (likely) in a collision of a Pilot to a Civic.
Exactly. Frontal crashes cannot easily be compared across weight classes, though side impacts often can. I'd probably choose the Pilot in this scenario as well, but I doubt vehicle vs. different vehicle 25% offset crashes are well studied to say for certain.
Here's IIHS's discussion of the comparison:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/vehicle-size-and-weight/qanda#vehicle-size-and-weight
And IMO, here's the best way to shop "safest" across all vehicle classes - real world crash statistics for Personal Injury and Medical Payment:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/insurance-loss-information
I am personally not a big fan of the IIHS fatality or injury data for specific vehicles as an overall safety comparison, if only because identical or extremely similar corporate twins often have different scores. If that kind of variability happens within the same vehicle class, the results are likely even more skewed when the driver demographics change across classes. For example, the Grand Caravan and T&C varied by over 10 points in personal and bodily injury insurance claims. The Sienna and Sienna 4WD had similar bodily injury claims, but varied by 18 points in personal injury. There seems to be a pretty wide margin of error even for essentially identical vehicles.
On the other hand, there probably is at least some correlation to crash-worthiness in these numbers; a particularly high or low score in insurance injury claims payouts relative to other models in the same class may raise an eyebrow?
www.informedforlife.com used to directly factor in weight for frontal crashes where it is more important and that would impact the vehicle's overall risk score. Unfortunately, they changed their methodology for model year 2013 vehicles and no longer do this directly. Instead, they take top models based on IIHS and NHTSA ratings, then filter those based on weight. A vehicle must essentially be above 3200 pounds to make their cut. Still reasonable in principle, but I liked the previous method, personally. That's what made their scores unique and something you couldn't find anywhere else. Now, they essentially do what I do, find vehicles that have 5-star overall NHTSA results, IIHS Top Picks and also don't have any individual crash test results of "3-stars" or "marginal" or worse. Then throw out all sub-compacts. Presto, safest vehicles list! Of course, even that eliminates a lot of very safe vehicles! Here's an interesting page they have on the topic, though:
http://www.informedforlife.org/viewartcl.php?index=83
Whoa--this wouldn't happen. Remember, the small overlap, much like the moderate overlap, is based on weight. In other words, a poor scoring large vehicle may still protect you better than a good scoring small vehicle. Between the two vehicles, there's no question that I'd rather be in a Pilot than in a Civic if I were about to run into a telephone pole or another vehicle at 40 mph. In nearly every fatal crash I've blogged so far, the fatalities have almost always been in the lighter weight vehicle, regardless of the safety scores of either of the two vehicles. Structural integrity can only do so much.
An immovable object, like a solid wall or large pole will generally eliminate or at least reduce the mass of the vehicle as a factor. Regardless of the vehicle's weight, you'd definitely want to be in a vehicle that has a top rating for the type of crash involved (NHTSA full frontal for a wall, IIHS small overlap if you hit a pole on the far left front end). In fact, truck based vehicles with rigid body-on-frame designs can be a liability in a crash with a rigid wall or pole, even for the biggest passenger models. The stiff chassis transfers more energy to the occupants as it tends to crush less to absorb energy, because the wall or poll will stop the vehicle even more suddenly than a small car that crushes well, assuming the wall or pole doesn't yield, of course.
In a vehicle vs. vehicle head on, mass is definitely a benefit. Where the tradeoff is between a good/poor rating and weight of vehicle is subject to discussion, of course. Keep in mind that the 25% small overlap IIHS offset crash is just one type of crash, and it is worthy to note that it is a less common one than the NHTSA full frontal or IIHS moderate overlap frontal crash.
So, weight is generally an advantage. The sad irony is that large weight differences are dangerous to the much lighter vehicle, primarily when taller, heavier truck based models rip apart lower riding compact cars. The reality is we'd all be significantly safer on the roads if most vehicles were small cars with top crash test scores. Less mass on the roads means less energy in crashes. We'd also save an incredible amount of gas. Those are huge problems with our bigger-is-better society! Not that I'm innocent. I drive a 4,500lb. SUV, while my wife drives the 3,000 lb. fuel efficient vehicle...
