I don't think they would claim the translators were inspired in the same way as the writers

Poppycock. Even old irreligious atheists (like me) might reference their cherished family copies of the KJV for the poetry / folklore / tradition / continuity of the thing, although (and call me an old purist if you must) when it comes to the Psalms I'm a BCP man every time - Purcell's transcendent setting of the first verse of Psalm 102 being a case in point, likewise the first two verses of Job 14 (from the Funeral Sentences), neither of which have quite the same intimacy in their later KJV counterparts.   

And talking of intimacy, the joys of anal sex as so deliciously described in the KJV Song of Solomon (5:4) excites more of Bowlder than bowel on the part of modern translators unable to cope with this so manifestly unXtian procedure.

The KJV remains, in this day, as inspired as it is inspiring.