Answer is No..........
The did a feasability study I believe when they were looking at re-introducing the singles range when the liability laws in the USA were capped...... They found that the cost would be prohibitive, indeed close to the price of the 172, hence why they went for the 172 instead... I believe it was rightly assumed that no one would pay the price of a 172 for the 152, that and also 60's man and 2010 man are a lot different in size, the 172 accommodates the extra girth.
Most of the cost in the construction is down to labour and the labour to produce a 152 will be close to that of a 172, after all a 172 construction wise is simply a 172 with a couple of extra feet of tin in every direction, still will be close to the manhours to build.
Hence the 162, only thing I can see on that which is a bit dodgy, at least with the 152 you had a strut to stop the student / passenger walking fwd into the prop..on the 162 you don't... it is behind them.