Matchless G2 CSR

It was in 1958 that Associated Motorcycles announced the AJS Model 14 and Matchless G2, ostensibly a new range of unit construction 4-stroke 250s; the market reacted unenthusiastically. The engine was bulky for the quarter litre class and, on closer examination, still used a separate gearbox, requiring manual adjustment of the primary chain. The fact the chassis employed similar components to the James & Francis Barnett lightweights also drew further adverse comment. Half a century later these models are understandably rare, and it is correct to state they now possess a certain appeal for serious students and/or collectors of the evocative AMC brand. With its unusual gold and black livery, enhanced by the 350/500 type forks [per CS specification], it is a visibly attractive machine.

Review summary

" The machine is very good for a learner or someone who just wants to potter to work. But for a more serious motor cyclist like myself it is ruined by small design faults which could easily have been rectified by the makers.

" For long distances, adjustable handlebars and controls would make an incredible difference. However, this particular fault has at last been attended to."

That quotation is from Chris Gilbert. And it is fairly representative of the opinions of all reporters. Confirmation comes from 19-year-old machinist Barry Heywood, of Coventry: "One of the best two-fifties on the market. You get what you expect for your money. And now that they have fitted new forks and brakes and given it a face lift, the Matchless Sports is better than ever. If I was going back to a quarter-litre job, I would have another CSR any day."

" The acceleration, braking and road holding will match any British two-fifty. It must be the most beautiful motor cycle in the world." Ian Spooner of Chesterfield speaking.

Postscript is added by Michael Weaver: "A good little bike—nothing elaborate or fancy."
 There you have it. The AJS and Matchless two-fifties are fast, comfortable and fun to ride. Unless you happen to be very unlucky, they are also reliable.

After sending in their reports, readers were asked to complete a questionnaire in which they answered specific questions according to the formula good, average or poor. In calculating these figures we have allowed two points for good and one point for middling. Poor got nothing.  The marks below are given as percentages of the total possible marks.

• Acceleration 77%

• Flexibility  78%

• Smoothness 73%

• Starting  88%

• Oil Tightness  74%

• Reliability  74%

• Clutch  74%

• Gear Box  83%

• Delivery Tune  80%

• Accessibility 65%

•  Handling  87%

•  Front Suspension  75%

•  Rear Suspension  80%

•  Controls Smoothness  74%

• Riding Position  83%

•  Brakes  61%

•  Mudguarding  82%

• Workmanship  70%

•  Quality of Finish  73%

•  Lighting  57%

•  Horn  8%

• Other Electrics  52%

•  Tool Kit  60%

• Spares from Manufacturer 44%