Sorry, even though I like this image, it does not appear to me to be what I know and understand HDR to be. HDR should, in my opinion, just extend the tonal ranges in photos.
I understand this image does not look like what you may be accustomed to with HDR, but it is hard for me to avoid getting offended when you keep insisting it is not HDR. HDR opens whole new realms of a photography previously impossible. Look at the image. It has detail in the clouds, the dirt, the paint, the sky. There is no part of the image that does not have detail because it was outside of the range of exposure. That right there should tell you this is an HDR image, and not possible with anything other than HDR. It might be best to think of it as an image that has been severely dodged and burned. Generally, you can only get away with a little bit of dodging and burning because there is only so much range in your image, but with HDR, you can dodge and burn the crap out of an image because you do have all that info contained within the file. Furthermore, as I explained, most of the tones have been pushed toward the black, toward Zones 0,I,II,&III (if you prefer the Zone System), instead of Zones IV,V,VI,&VII as would be the more normal (realistic looking) thing to do.