the first gen FX uses a McPherson strut design in the front, no upper control arm. it can be lowered just about all the way down without affecting the camber all that much in the front, which is why you really don't see any first gens with alignment issues in the front, only the rear, even slammed... the second gen Fx uses a double wishbone suspension in the front,
now the double wishbone front suspension is without a doubt better than the McPherson strut setup which is why the new FX in stock form handles much better than the first gen in stock form, the front steering and suspension geometry is better on the second gen BUT when it comes to lowering this is where the issues come in to play.
in my opinion the fronts need a solution just as much as the rears on the second gen. Nissan designed the front suspension geometry to function as designed at a specific ride height of stock, which is really a fixed parameter as far as Nissan is concerned, so much so that they don't even offer ANY kind of adjustment at all to compensate for variations in static ride height... any lowering will cause the wheel to start to camber in, the lower it goes the more the wheel will camber in.
there is one more thing to be aware of... because the front is now using a double wishbone suspension, this design causes the wheel to camber in more as the suspension is lowered or compressed. this is what makes the second gen handle better than the first... this design allows Nissan to spec less initial static camber at vehicle ride height, yet when the vehicle rolls through a hard turn the outside wheel will compress the suspension and add camber to the outside wheels... the first gen can't do this and instead the first gen is dialed in with a bit more static camber, because it will NOT increase as the body rolls... what this means in the end is that if you wind up with extra negative camber at the new lowered ride height this is bad because as the vehicle rolls through a turn it will STILL add even more negative camber to that, AND because the suspension is now already partially into it's downward slope at the new lowered ride height this means that the ramp up, or amount of camber added (the camber curve) as the suspension is compressed more is even lower, in other words stock suspension may add say .2* of negative camber per inch compression from it's initial static ride height, but this ramp is generally progressive, meaning that the lower it goes the more negative is added per inch of compression... so while the first inch or travel may add .2* the second inch may add .3* and the third inch may add another .4*, so if you lowered the fx 2" then at that new static ride height the first inch of compression will now add .4* instead of .2* and so on... these numbers I've picked are purely for illustrative purposes and are not to be considered as the actual values as I have not spent the time to fully model the suspension design but this is generally how it works. in layman's terms what this means is that at a new lower static ride height the suspension geometry will add even MORE camber as the suspension is compressed that it would at the stock ride height, making too much initial negative camber even that much more of an issue..
You'd be the man for the job....and hopefully could make a decent profit due to supply and demand.
