I think you're confusing CR and iihs, Jeep still has to address their Poor rating in the tests every year, and it doesn't look good seeing Fail and Poor in those areas. But more importantly they will become a requirement. They were supposed to start phasing them in Sept 1, 2009 over 5 years, but like the rear-camera that got pushed out a few years. I'm not sure what the new requirement will be (was hard just keeping track of the rear-camera delays), but as it's an optional feature now, it seems certain that it will be a standard feature in the future.
Lane departutre I'm not copncerned about , having used it for years it's a 'Meh' feature after the novelty wears off, and can be disabled. But I'm not worried about me, I'm worried about all the morons out there that can't figure out how to not collide with the rest of us.
As someone who's had someone run a light and t-bone me, I'm OK with the front collision avoidance and the side airbags, although I know that it's not for everyone. To me, all those combined features add to maybe a $500-700 sticker increase once you achieve economies of scales with them being everywhere. The side impact airbags are currently $400 option on the very VERY few that get them now, so it just gets cheaper when everyone has them. Half the driving aids can be obtained from an $89 dashcam, so again, not sure the true cost to the manufacturer. And the way I look at it is if they design for it now, then even if it's option before moving to mandatory, then it's baked into the design and not some duct-taped add-on afterthought.
As for the dimesnions, I don't disagree they can make the 4dr smaller (2dr less so) , but I don't think that's likely considering the platform. I don't think they will use the entire additional ~4-6 inches in the test mules, but I doubt they can recoup all of that without impacting dynamics as well as severely restricting the ability to change geometry/lift. The engine bay/firewall divide is one side, and if you add length there, in order o recoup it elsewhere then you need to shorten the cab length, thus either reducing occupant or cargo space. Neither of those two things amount to perceived improvements, even just as a surface mention in a review on boringdailydrivers.com or whatever. It even impacts the utility of the Wrangler as a weekend escape vehicle if you reduce the size of the cargo space, and also the 'overland' concept that is popular abroad. I know I would love an additional 2 inches in length... and also 2 more inches for the Wrangler..
The JK is already plenty skinny, and adding an inch or so in cab width wouldn't change the profile much since the tyres/fenders are already a few inches outside the tub. Something of a mild hexagonality to the added width would make sense, thus not impacting the trail width but providing more space to work with.
I don't want to see bloat, but I suspect they've widened it by an inch or so, and likely lengthened it by a similar amount. I really don't see a compelling reason to turn the interior into an Ariel Atom or Mountain Climbing tube-tub, just as I don't see the need in making a Suburban-ized Wrangler either.