NOTE: My comments below refer to the image posted in the initial post - I have not read the other replies to that post, nor any follow-ups by the OP.
I think that this image would benefit by having the forest behind the truck be out-of-focus......at least moreso than it is, as it appears to be almost as in-focus as the truck itself.
If it were me, I would have accomplished this by moving closer to the truck, and shooting it from a closer distance. All of the pavement in front of the truck doesn't really seem to accomplish much, from a compositional standpoint - so I would have eliminated it, which moving closer would accomplish.
I also would have used a much wider aperture; perhaps f2 or f2.8 at the most. Why? Well, that would have helped to blur the background forest.
Another thing I would have done would be to park the truck differently. There is a lot of open pavement to the truck's left - that is where I would have parked it. Why? Because that would get it further away from the trees in the background, which would help you get separation between the truck and the forest.
Getting closer to the truck and shooting with a wider aperture has another benefit; it would enable you to more effectively blur out part of the truck. I think this type of image would be more visually dynamic if the front of the truck (hood, bumper, fender, front wheel, front of door and roof pillar) were sharp, and the rear of the truck (rear door, rear wheel, bed) were increasingly out of focus.
Another thing I would have done would be to pay very careful attention to the "major" tree trunks, and where they intersect the truck. Because you used such a deep depth of field, and photographed the scene from so far away from the truck, and parked the truck so close to the woods, those two tree trunks in the middle of the frame are really very prominent, which I don't see as a good thing. I wouldn't want any one particular part of the forest (let alone two) to compete with my subject for visual impact. The fact that one of them is transecting the leading edge of the truck isn't helping. But, if you would do all of the other things that I recommended above, those tree trunks wouldn't be nearly so prominent, so in that case their exact location wouldn't be so important - but you would still want to pay close attention to where each tree trunk is and make sure that its location (relative to the truck) is optimal, from an aesthetic standpoint.
By the way, I think that your 5D classic would have been a much better choice for this particular photo. Why? Because it would help you to better blur out the tree trunks in the background, and it would allow you to get physically closer to the truck which would result in a more dynamic visual, for the reasons discussed above. Also, the slightly dark corners that you would have if you shot this with your 5Dc would work pretty well with this image, producing a slight vignette, which in some cases is horrid, but in this case I think it would work really well with the subject matter and the composition.
"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".