I had a very similar experience, actually almost ended up with a Hyundai SF sport because of the nice looks/interior/space (buying an inherently boring CUV after all) but somehow I 'forgot' just how good the Mazda's steering and handling were until I came back- this time testing a GT- first drive was touring I believe and found the cloth seats uncomfortable (shoulders) and ride seemed notably worse and louder on the 17s- likely due to overinflated tires. So yes after ruling out RAV, CR-V (I was replacing 07 that was better IMO), X1 due to poor trade in offer, plus I still had a 128 at the time so it seemed a little redundant/snobby. GTs Leather seats were nice, mirror still shook but was later (mostly) fixed, ride/handling/steering felt just right (I was opposed to the 19s) and only driving the Hyundai and Mazda back to back truly revealed it. I was so lucky I didn't cave on the aggressive deal Hyundai made because the Mazda is sooo much better to drive and I've owned RWD sporty cars pretty much from 17 on. 83 Celica then Supra, 91 MR2 turbo (all manuals) were the cars of my youth. I had previously ruled out the 2013 CX-5 due to lack of power and even though the 2.5 still is no speed demon its a very good fit for the vehicle- good mileage, torquey down low and just enough punch to never make you say damn this thing is slooow.
So, even though this had nothing to do w/Jeep (which I wouldn't touch w/a pole), point of reference is critical in discovering just how poor (or surprisingly well) vehicles not only perform but how they feel while performing. For me the Mazda didn't really wow with features nor does it beg to be flogged like a sports car but it is a very well rounded, surprisingly fun to drive CUV that hasn't lost any luster w/time- good driving vehicles tend to have that benefit whereas creature/feature allure typically wears off.
Very well said!