I have not, as I have not needed to go vehicle shopping recently (who would, when you already have the best vehicle ever made? :thumbs_up: )
But I have read(/watched) endless reviews of vehicles, including many with CVTs over the past several years, and I think every (professional) automotive reviewer I've read dislikes them. I've never once read/watched a single reviewer say "Wow, what a great experience I had driving that CVT! So connected and responsive!"
Most of them complain about performance delays and "the rubber band effect." By that they mean when you go to accelerate (not necessarily floor it, but I can't say for sure) there's a delay like winding up a rubber band before it's energy is more carefully released to the wheels than the gas pedal would have indicated. Maybe it's akin to turbo lag, or driving a boat, but it sounds perhaps not unlike the "tameness" you described.
The reviewers basically complain of a "disconnected" feeling, like something is slipping. The engine sounds don't corroborate with the (lower) acceleration being experienced.
JuneBug's thoughts struck a chord as well. I noticed, for example, the new Subaru Forester, which only comes with a CVT, dropped it's towing capacity from 2400 lbs for the previous model with an automatic transmission to 1500 lbs for the version with the CVT. I can only guess it is due to the CVT because it has the same engines available as the previous year. And come to think of it, since JuneBug mentioned it I don't remember seeing CVTs available on, for example, pickup trucks, trail-rated Jeeps, performance cars, luxury sedans, etc.
And when I'm towing there are times when I want to keep the transmission from going into overdrive, and force it to stay down in 4th gear, giving me more control of overall power and performance. And people do those kinds of things (downshift) in mountainous driving, e.g. on steady downhill grades. I struggle to understand how those kinds of things would work well with a CVT, which is generally designed to try to keep the engine in the "sweet spot" for fuel economy.
It's my understanding that one of the things vehicle manufacturers like about CVTs is that they're cheaper to manufacture, as well. (But who sees CVT car prices dropping...?)
However, indications in more recent articles are that CVTs have been improving, perhaps significantly, which is very good news. For example, not that long ago CVTs were well known for a constant droning sound, but in many cases that has gotten much better.
I'd also have to at least call into question their long-term reliability, given that many are relatively new designs. For example, Nissan has had significant quality problems with the JATCO transmission in the Altima...so much so that Consumer Reports refused to recommend the vehicle explicitly because of the CVT. I sure wouldn't want to be a guinea pig consumer.
If someone can make a CVT that performs exactly, in all respects, like an automatic but still improves fuel economy (e.g. perhaps due to less friction, a more efficient design, lighter weight, etc.) that would be awesome.
I'm not at all opposed to improving fuel economy. It's forcing the loss of performance, control/"connectedness" and utility down our throats in the name of it that I dislike.
But I'm hopeful that, with continuing experience and improvements, manufacturers will find ways, for example with better designs and software, to overcome the deficiencies I see. I doubt that can happen within the next couple of years, but hopefully in the long-term they'll figure it out.
.