Why do You image rather than clone? What's the difference?
I never had the need for a clone. I just collect images on a large disk from which I never boot. And when I transfer the OS to e.g. a SSD, I do it the 'traditional' way - like
this.
The difference between a clone and an image is like the difference from a photographic print and a negative. A clone is an exact duplicate of the source drive. An image is like a negative in that it is used to create an exact reproduction of a drive or partition, same as a photo negative is used to create a photo print.
I clone my data drives so, if a data drive in my desktop computer should permanently die, I can just pull the SATA data plug on that drive, then plug the clone into the appropriate hot swap bay on my computer (a dock could also be used but it would be less convenient and usually would be slower) and be up running again in a couple, three minutes, giving me time to replace the dead drive.
I image my boot drive because I can (and have) restore the boot drive should something go horribly wrong. Replacing the drive with a clone would take a fair amount of time and be a royal PITA whereas restoring from an image takes only a few minutes. An image also takes up less space and multiple images can be kept on the same HDD along with other existing data. A clone wipes the entire destination drive.
As far as I know, one can't clone one partition only.
Now, that all said, I cloned the one (and only) HDD in my notebook to another drive and the other drive worked perfectly so I don't know why it didn't work for you. I just got an SSD for that notebook and will use whs' tutorial to transfer the OS, etc. to the SSD to ensure I don't mess up track alignment on the SSD.