Advice on 1949 Buick Special front suspenion options

I agree with Weasel, the M II is too light duty for that heavy of car especially of the roads are rough.
I would look at a Camaro clip.
Just because they make it, does not make it right. Also many kits for the M II widen out the cross member moving the pivot points farther apart. Then they just lengthen the ends of the tier rods. This will give you more bump steer.
I designed a narrowed M II front end for 1940 Fords. Could not find a proper length rack so had to go to a custom unit from a dirt late model, made to my specs.

 

GM g body front clip worked great in my 47 cadillac, 78-88 monte carlo, malibu, grand prix, regal, etc..conventional A arm suspension with coil springs.

 

Wow i had a brain fart and thought the 49 Buick had a narrower front suspension like a 41 Buick so please change S-10 to 2nd gen Camaro. A 7" dia bag will bolt in and with a SS7 bag you will have atleast 9" of real world wheel travel without over centering the ball joints plus zero bump steer and very little camber change. Pics are of a 1953 Olds frame

 

I know of many 49/51 Mercury owners how are very unhappy with a M11 when they added bags. Some just sold the car and a few have had to replaced the whole frame. One was even a 20k Art Mossison frame.

The C4 suspension is a great suspesion with limited wheel travel but it does not work well with the added wheel travel that comes with bags and will have some bump steer and some minor caster change issues due to the added wheel travel but it is better than any M11 or Jag IMOP

Erickson / Extreme Kustoms
951 678-3520

 

I am about the biggest PROPENENT of Mustang IIs under the right car walking this planet today, BUT... Even as the smaller Special version of the car it's really pushing the acceptable boundries of what a Mustang II front end really works well with. In my OPINION, after lots of research with a well know friend of mine, MOST Mustang II aftermarket kits change or out right corrupt the geometery of these front ends in the name of chassis fit. I will render another OPINION, I wouldn't put a FatMan front end kit under a radio flyer wagon. That's enough on that subject.

Weasle and the rest that are pointing you the same way in my opinion have hit the nail on the head with the Jag XJ stuff. It's the right width, the weight is a close match, and it's nice and compact with very good geometry for tadays driving conditions. If for some reason the Jag wasn't a player in this deal, i'd also be looking at the GM A-G body front clips, as they are right in the same hub to hub width range and also far improved goemetry over their earlier cousins.

 

With air bags, everyone is trying to get as much travel as possible, without realizing that the factory (Ford, G.M., etc) "limits" the travel with bump stops and shocks. I know of one place that makes both C4 and Must II based suspensions that only uses the Ride Tech shockwaves, so the travel can be controlled.

As far as weight, I keep in mind of where the motor will fall in relation to the suspension. Motor forward, more front weight on the wheels. Same motor moved back to the rear, takes some weight away.

Notice I used the word "based". Most Must II suspensions really aren't Must II's. Most are using a T-bird rack (heavier car), Chrylser screw in ball joints (heavier car), 11" brake rotors compared to the old 9" rotors and Tubular (non-stamped) control arms. Not really must Mustang left other than possibly the spindle and geometry.