My honest opinion is none of these are working too well for me. I'll try to explain why.
Although the first two images have a high dynamic range, they have a low tonal range (Lots of Grays but not much black or whites). A black point is critical for print and viewing. It really helps with the overall contrast and depth of a landscape. The renderings have made both #1 and # 2 somewhat flat, and the grays are overbearing making the images look almost desaturated. #1 the sky is very far gone for my personal tastes, with blacks and blues and strange, unnatural things happening.
I like the sky in #2. The scene is the nicest in #2, but probably would've rather seen this in landscape orientation with a bit less busy foreground. Also, the foreground is not super prominent-- the separation from foreground to mid-ground is lacking. I'm more interested in the water and it's reflections than the pebbles and weeds in the foreground. I do like the rocks and weeds as a foreground element, but not 50% of the frame worth.
In #3 your processing is really well done and my favorite of the set. I learned a while back that for winding road shots, wide is usually not the way to go. It makes the road get really small, really fast, and you're left with a bunch of uninteresting asphalt in the foreground (60% of your frame) and the actual winding road and body of water are only 1/25th of the image. I do like the colors and the location however. If you'd shot this at a longer focal length on your crop body, I think the results woud've done the scene more justice.
It worked out well, though 
